State v. King

EDMUNDS, Justice.

In this case we consider whether the trial court abused its discretion when it granted defendant’s motion to suppress expert testimony regarding repressed memory. Although we affirm the holding of the Court of Appeals majority that the trial court properly granted defendant’s motion, we disavow the portion of the opinion that, relying on an earlier opinion of that court, requires expert testimony always *69to accompany the testimony of a lay witness in cases involving allegedly recovered memories.

On 12 September 2005, defendant was indicted for first degree rape in violation of…