290 P.3d 1272
Idaho Ct. App.2012Background
- Nine victims aged 9–14 were interviewed by five officers; all victims testified at trial.
- Defendant Critchfield was tried on two counts of lewd conduct and seven counts of sexual abuse; verdicts: guilty on one lewd conduct and one sexual abuse count, not guilty on four counts, and unresolved on three.
- Defense sought to admit Dr. Gregory Wilson to critique interviewing techniques; offered that he reviewed interview recordings and opined on suggestive methods.
- The district court excluded Dr. Wilson’s testimony, ruling it irrelevant without interview recordings or officer testimony about the interviews.
- Jury convicted on two counts; Critchfield moved for a new trial alleging erroneous exclusion of Dr. Wilson’s testimony; district court granted the motion; State appealed, district court order affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether defense expert testimony on interviewing techniques was admissible | Critchfield | State | Admissible; does not invade jury function. |
| Whether exclusion of Dr. Wilson’s testimony was error | Exclusion deprived relevant, probative testimony. | Exclusion was proper due to lack of foundational recordings. | Error was not harmless; requires new trial. |
| Whether the error was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt | Memory reliability was central; tainting possible. | Error not prejudicial given other evidence. | Not harmless; new trial affirmed. |
| Whether the district court should have allowed expert critique of interviewing techniques irrespective of whether state presented interview content | Cases permit defense critique of procedures. | State need not have introduced interview content first. | Permissible; defense testimony relevant to reliability. |
| Relation to precedent on expert testimony and jury credibility functions | Expert may discuss proper procedures and effects on memory. | Expert cannot opine on credibility or guilt. | Allowed to discuss procedures and effects; not to opine on credibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Perry, 150 Idaho 209, 245 P.3d 961 (2010) (Idaho Supreme Court 2010) (expert testimony on memory and credibility limited by rule 702; allows non-credibility opinions by experts)
- State v. Joslin, 145 Idaho 75, 175 P.3d 764 (2007) (Idaho Supreme Court 2007) (limits on expert testimony regarding witness credibility)
- State v. Wright, 147 Idaho 150, 206 P.3d 856 (Ct. App. 2009) (Idaho Court of Appeals 2009) (relevance of memory reliability evidence)
- State v. Farlow, 144 Idaho 444, 163 P.3d 233 (Ct. App. 2007) (Idaho Court of Appeals 2007) (relevance of memory contamination evidence)