## Facts

- The State charged Martin David Salazar-Mercado with multiple counts of child molestation and sexual conduct with a minor under fifteen involving two children.
- The alleged victims delayed reporting and had gaps in memory about some details.
- The prosecution sought to call Dr. Wendy Dutton, a forensic interviewer with a Ph.D., to testify about Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) and common behavioral patterns of abused children (e.g., delayed or piecemeal disclosure, recantation, and difficulty recalling peripheral details).
- Dutton had no knowledge of the particular victims or case facts and would not offer opinions about whether abuse occurred or whether any witness was truthful; she was offered as a “cold” and “blind” expert to provide general education.
- The defense moved to preclude the testimony, arguing that amended Arizona Rule of Evidence 702—especially Rule 702(d)—required application of methods to the case facts and that CSAAS-type evidence was unreliable.
- The trial court denied the motion and admitted the testimony in general terms about children’s perceptions of abuse, disclosure behaviors, and circumstances in which children may make false allegations.
- A jury convicted Salazar-Mercado on all but two counts; the court imposed sentences including life imprisonment with eligibility for release after thirty-five years.
- The Arizona Supreme Court granted review to decide whether Rule 702 and Daubert bar “cold” expert testimony that does not consider case-specific facts.

## Issues

1. Whether Arizona Rule of Evidence 702, as amended to follow Daubert, bars admission of “cold” expert testimony that educates jurors about general principles without considering the case’s particular facts.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting generalized CSAAS-related testimony from an expert who did not apply those principles to the specific victims.

## Decision

- The Arizona Supreme Court held that Rule 702 does not categorically bar “cold” expert testimony.
- The Court interpreted Rule 702(d) as requiring reliable application only when an expert actually purports to apply principles and methods to case facts, not as a prerequisite to all expert testimony.
- The Court concluded the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dutton’s generalized testimony.
- The Court affirmed the convictions and sentences (and vacated/depublished portions of the court of appeals’ opinion).

## Legal Principles

- Under Arizona Rule of Evidence 702 (Daubert), expert testimony may be admitted if it is helpful, based on sufficient facts or data, and is the product of reliable principles and methods.
- Rule 702(d) does not require every expert to apply principles to the specific facts; it requires that any application undertaken be performed reliably.
- General, educational expert testimony may be admissible to explain behaviors that jurors might otherwise misinterpret, including dynamics commonly seen in child sexual abuse reporting.
- Experts may not vouch for a particular witness’s credibility; generalized testimony is more likely permissible when the expert lacks case knowledge and offers no case-specific conclusions.
- Reliability challenges to CSAAS-type testimony are addressed through the trial court’s gatekeeping discretion and through adversarial testing (e.g., cross-examination and competing evidence), rather than categorical exclusion.

## Conclusion

The Arizona Supreme Court ruled that Daubert-based Rule 702 permits “cold” expert testimony offering reliable, helpful general education to jurors without tying the principles to the specific facts, and it upheld the admission of generalized CSAAS-related testimony that did not comment on the victims’ credibility.


State v. Salazar-Mercado, 234 Ariz. 590, 325 P.3d 996 (Ariz. 2014)