## Facts

- After a domestic incident, Romanda Lee reported to Anchorage police that Lorenzo Carter grabbed her head, hit her, and choked her; Lee’s two daughters initially reported witnessing the assault.
- Carter was charged with second-degree assault based on the alleged choking/strangulation and with interfering with a report of domestic violence for allegedly unplugging the phone when Lee tried to call 911.
- By trial, Lee and her daughters recanted; Lee testified she told her daughters to call 911 and falsely accuse Carter, and that she repeated the story to police out of fear of getting in trouble for lying to the 911 operator.
- The State relied on prior inconsistent statements and testimony from responding officers, including Officer Earl Ernest.
- Ernest testified he observed fresh scratches on Lee’s neck and face and petechiae in her eyes, and described how strangulation victims often present petechiae and may not immediately show bruising.
- The defense objected that Ernest’s testimony about the significance of petechiae and other strangulation indicators was expert testimony and that Ernest lacked sufficient qualifications.
- The trial court overruled the objection, allowing some testimony as lay opinion and the remainder on the ground that Ernest was sufficiently qualified by training and experience.
- A jury convicted Carter of second-degree assault and interfering with a report of domestic violence.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting a police officer’s testimony about physical indicators of strangulation as lay opinion under Alaska Evidence Rule 701.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by permitting the officer to give expert testimony under Alaska Evidence Rule 702 regarding the significance of petechiae, delayed bruising, and related strangulation signs, based on training and investigative experience rather than medical credentials.

## Decision

- The Alaska Court of Appeals affirmed Carter’s convictions.
- The court held that portions of Ernest’s testimony were admissible as lay opinion because they were based on his observations and helpful to the jury.
- The court held that, to the extent Ernest’s testimony went beyond description to explain the significance of observed symptoms in strangulation cases, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in treating him as qualified to give expert testimony.
- The challenged testimony was properly admitted under the trial court’s evidentiary gatekeeping authority.

## Legal Principles

- Lay opinion testimony is admissible when it is rationally based on the witness’s perception and helpful to understanding the testimony or determining a fact in issue. (Alaska Evid. R. 701)
- Expert testimony is admissible when the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education and the testimony will assist the trier of fact. (Alaska Evid. R. 702)
- A witness may be qualified as an expert through practical training and investigative experience; formal medical credentials are not required if the witness possesses specialized knowledge helpful to the jury.
- Appellate review of trial court decisions admitting lay or expert opinion testimony applies an abuse-of-discretion standard.

## Conclusion

The court upheld the trial judge’s decision to admit a responding officer’s testimony describing observed injuries and explaining commonly associated strangulation indicators, ruling that the testimony fell within permissible lay opinion and, where specialized explanation was offered, within properly admitted expert testimony based on experience and training.


Carter v. State, 235 P.3d 221 (Alaska Ct. App. 2010)