State v. Forsythe

¶59 I agree with the Court’s analysis under the first issue regarding spousal privilege, but disagree with the conclusion reached under the second issue regarding the expert testimony that was admitted concerning Forsythe’s letters. It is vital to maintain the distinction between lay witnesses and expert witnesses1 and to properly analyze the error when this distinction is lost.

¶60 At trial, the State repeatedly claimed Tucker was simply a lay witness. As the State acknowledges on appeal, this assertion was incorrect—Tucker indeed offered expert testimony. As we recently explained, “if…