12-2203. Admissibility of expert opinion testimony
A. In a civil or criminal action, only a qualified witness may offer expert opinion testimony regarding scientific, technical or other specialized knowledge and the testimony is admissible if the court determines that all of the following apply:
1. The witness is qualified to offer an opinion as an expert on the subject matter based on knowledge, skill, experience, training or education.
2. The opinion will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue.
3. The opinion is based on sufficient facts and data.
4. The opinion is the product of reliable principles and methods.
5. The witness reliably applies the principles and methods to the facts of the case.
B. The court shall consider the following factors, if applicable, in determining whether the expert testimony is admissible pursuant to subsection A:
1. Whether the expert opinion and its basis have been or can be tested.
2. Whether the expert opinion and its basis have been subjected to peer reviewed publications.
3. The known or potential rate of error of the expert opinion and its basis.
4. The degree to which the expert opinion and its basis are generally accepted in the scientific community.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
6
cases (
1 in the last 5 years), 2011–2024 · leading case:
Lear v. Fields, 245 P.3d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
Lear v. Fields, 245 P.3d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “¶ 1 In this special action, we are asked to decide whether AR.S. § 12-2203, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, is constitutional.”
State of Arizona v. Trent Christopher Benson, 307 P.3d 19 (Ariz. 2013).
· cites it 2× “In 2010, the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-2203, which replaced the Frye standard for admitting expert testimony with the Daubert standard.”
State v. Kelly, 545 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
· cites it 10× “On appeal, Kelly reasserts his claim that the officer’s opinion did not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 702 or A.R.S. § 12-2203 because it was not “based on sufficient facts or data” and “reliable principles and methods” and because the officer did…”
State v. Bigger, 254 P.3d 1142 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “In 2010, the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-2203, which purported to change the Frye standard for admitting expert testimony.”
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 15× “But because the respondent judge correctly found the statute usurps the supreme court‟s rule-making authority and violates the separation of powers doctrine, we deny relief.”
State of Arizona v. Ronald Bruce Bigger (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
· cites it 2× “3 In 2010, the legislature enacted A.R.S. § 12-2203, which purported to change the Frye standard for admitting expert testimony.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2203(A) — 2 cases
Lear v. Fields, 245 P.3d 911 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“¶ 1 In this special action, we are asked to decide whether AR.S. § 12-2203, which governs the admissibility of expert testimony, is constitutional.”
William Allen Lear v. State of Arizona (Ariz. Ct. App. 2011).
“But because the respondent judge correctly found the statute usurps the supreme court‟s rule-making authority and violates the separation of powers doctrine, we deny relief.”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2203(A)(3) — 1 case
State v. Kelly, 545 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“On appeal, Kelly reasserts his claim that the officer’s opinion did not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 702 or A.R.S. § 12-2203 because it was not “based on sufficient facts or data” and “reliable principles and methods” and because the officer did…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2203(A)(4) — 1 case
State v. Kelly, 545 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“On appeal, Kelly reasserts his claim that the officer’s opinion did not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 702 or A.R.S. § 12-2203 because it was not “based on sufficient facts or data” and “reliable principles and methods” and because the officer did…”
— Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 12-2203(B) — 1 case
State v. Kelly, 545 P.3d 478 (Ariz. Ct. App. 2024).
“On appeal, Kelly reasserts his claim that the officer’s opinion did not satisfy the requirements of Arizona Rule of Evidence (“Rule”) 702 or A.R.S. § 12-2203 because it was not “based on sufficient facts or data” and “reliable principles and methods” and because the officer did…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.