State v. Francis
State v. Francis, 2025 UT App 104 (Tenney, J.)
Criminal
The Utah Court of Appeals held:
- The district court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted expert testimony because the expert’s testimony satisfied rule 702.
- The district court did not err in denying the request for proposed unanimity instruction because Defendant was not entitled to an instruction requiring unanimity on theories of nonconsent.
- While the district court erred in limiting witness testimony because the testimony was proper under rule 608(a) of the Utah Rules of Evidence, this error was harmless.
- While the district court erred in not giving the requested instruction on a lesser included offense, this error was harmless.
- Practice tip: Four principles have emerged from Utah case law governing expert testimony: (1) An expert cannot claim that he or she can tell true testimony from false testimony generally, nor can an expert say that he or she can tell whether a particular witness or victim was telling the truth; (2) Expert testimony is more likely to be admissible if the expert testifies as a blind witness; (3) An expert can testify about ‘common’ symptoms or behaviors of sexual abuse victims; and (4) Appellate courts have expressed hesitancy about allowing an expert to testify in terms of hard numbers and percentages.