Admissibility of Expert Testimony

Abstract

This article presents the case of Masters v. People, which is an opinion of the Colorado Supreme Court on the admissibility of expert psychological testimony in a sexual murder case. The Court found: (1) the forensic psychologist's expert testimony on his analysis of the defendant's drawings and writings was admissible; (2) the defendant's drawings and writings themselves were admissible as "other act" evidence. The standards for overturning the evidentiary ruling of the trial court were already weighted in favor of allowing the expert's testimony. The only way it could be found manifestly erroneous was under the legal exclusions of "bad character" evidence or "other acts" evidence. The Court chose to draw lines between professional "knowledge," character testimony, and "other acts" evidence to support the appellate and trial courts' rulings. Although the ruling concerned primarily evidentiary matters, Masters had impact on broad areas of ethics, validity, and conflict of interest in behavioral expert testimony. The ruling allowed expert testimony on the defendant's fantasies and their resemblance to the fantasies of an individual who might have committed the crime. Thereby, it drew a connection between the defendant and the crime without direct evidence that he committed the act. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)