State v. Guard

Chief Justice DURRANT,

opinion of the Court:

Introduction

11 We are asked to review the court of appeals' retroactive application of our decision in State v. Clopten to Mr. Guard's case. We issued Clopten while Mr. Guard's case was on direct appeal. In Clopten, we held that "in cases where eyewitnesses are identifying a stranger and one or more established factors affecting accuracy are present, the testimony of a qualified expert is both reliable and helpful, as required by rule 702" 1 Prior to. Clopten, there was a "de facto presumption against the admission of eyewitness expert testimony,"…