State v. Alberico
New Mexico Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
HARTZ, Judge.
Once again we confront the issue of the admissibility of expert testimony relating to rape trauma syndrome (RTS). In State v. Bowman, 104 N.M. 19, 715 P.2d 467 (Ct.App.1986), we assumed, but did not decide, that expert testimony on RTS is admissible. We affirmed the trial judge’s exercise of his discretion in refusing to permit the testimony in the circumstances of that case. In State v. Barraza, 110 N.M. 45, 791 P.2d 799 (Ct.App.1990), we affirmed a conviction in which testimony regarding RTS was admitted, but we did not address various challenges to the testimony raised…
Also in this document: Concurrence.
2Cases cited45 opinions
- Frye v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1923
- State v. MiddletonOregon Supreme Court · 1983
- People v. TaylorNew York Court of Appeals · 1990
- People v. BledsoeCalifornia Supreme Court · 1984
- State v. SaldanaSupreme Court of Minnesota · 1982
40 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by5 opinions
- State v. AlbericoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. AlbericoNew Mexico Supreme Court · 1993
- State v. AndersonNew Mexico Court of Appeals · 1993
- In Re the Marraige of WallSupreme Court of Colorado · 1994
- State v. KATRINA G.New Mexico Court of Appeals · 2008