 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Bottrell12/15/2000
is inapposite because it involved a capital case. The trial court did not have the benefit of the Supreme Court's later decisions and it considered Dr. Stanulis's testimony under the foundational requirements set forth in State v. Edmon. The trial court determined that the foundational requirements were not met and excluded the testimony.
In 1998, a month after Bottrell was sentenced, the Supreme Court announced that it did 'not adopt the foundational requirements announced in Edmon as absolute.' State v. Ellis, 136 Wn.2d 498, 522, 963 P.2d 843 (1998). 'In excluding the expert testimony on diminished capacity in the State's motion in limine, the court unreasonably and prematurely concluded the foundation for admissibility had not been satisfied. The court should have considered admissibility under ER 702 and application of ER 401 and 402.' Ellis, 136 Wn.2d at 523. In reaching its decision, the court emphasized that Ellis was a capital case. Ellis, 136 Wn.2d at 522. Here, the State argues that Ellis is not the law in non-capital cases such as Bottrell's. But, this is not a proper reading of Ellis, nor is the State's position supported by subsequent case law. See State v. Greene, 139 Wn.2d 64, 984 P.2d 1024 (1999), cert. denied, 120 S. Ct. 1726 (2000); State v. Mitchell, 102 Wn. App. 21, 997 P.2d 373 (2000); State v. Atsbeha, 96 Wn. App. 654, 981 P.2d 883 (1999), review granted, 140 Wn.2d 1001 (2000).
The Supreme Court has reiterated its holding in Ellis: ER 702 controls the analysis for both insanity and diminished capacity. The State asks us to revisit our recent decision in State v. Ellis in which we held the admissibility of expert testimony regarding diminished capacity is to be determined under ER 702. We decline the State's invitation. ER 702 is the standard for admissibility of expert testimony in Washington. Greene, 139 Wn.2d at 73 n.3 (expert testimony excluded because it was not possible to reliably connect the symptoms of dissociative identity disorder to the mental capacity of the defendant) (citations omitted).
Recently, Division One has followed Ellis when making decisions regarding the exclusion of expert testimony in non-capital cases. Mitchell, 102 Wn. App. 21 (defendant was convicted of one count of third degree assault and two counts of fourth degree assault); Atsbeha, 96 Wn. App. 654 (defendant was convicted of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver).
2. Psychiatric Community Recognition According to the American Psychiatric Association:
The essential feature of Posttraumatic Stress Disorder is the development of characteristic symptoms following exposure to an extreme traumatic stressor involving direct personal experience of an event that involves actual or threatened death or serious injury , or other threat to one's physical integrity; or witnessing an event that involves death, injury, or a threat to the physical integrity of another person; or learning about unexpected or violent death, serious harm, or threat of death or injury experienced by a family member or other close associate.
American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 424 (4th ed. 1994).
One hallmark of PTSD is flashback, a condition 'during which components of the {traumatic} event are relived and the person behaves as though experiencing the event at that moment. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, 424 (4th ed. 1994). When a person has a flashback, he or she undergoes an 'alteration in the perception or experience of the self in which the usual sense of one's own reality is temporarily lost or chan
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Washington Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|