Smith's Criminal Case Compendium
Table of Contents
State v. Thomas, ___ N.C. App. ___, 814 S.E.2d 835 (Apr. 17, 2018)
In this homicide case, the trial court did not err by excluding the expert opinion testimony of a forensic psychologist about the phenomenon of “fight or flight.” Citing the North Carolina Supreme Court’s McGrady decision the court noted that the expert did not possess any medical or scientific degrees. This led the trial court to determine that the expert would not provide insight beyond the conclusions that the jurors could readily draw from their own ordinary experiences. The trial court acted well within its discretion in making this determination. The expert’s testimony was not proffered to explain a highly technical and scientific issue in simpler terms for the jury. Rather her testimony appeared to be proffered “in order to cast a sheen of technical and scientific methodology onto a concept of which a lay person (and jury member) would probably already be aware.” As such, it did not provide insight beyond the conclusions that the jurors could readily draw from their ordinary experience.