WPC7 *^87H+FhX(:-HvMFw^3==P!\)J0~6W D)_k/( iӥS:54 y4dW#ndJl00Sz4 :ԮQ&(H XGZ!"IʶVEJ]QN2'*{,kIվ˴BK?_WI`#flZA{_7z;gBuN :u/?s'JOw8tie\ i"nYlɎ< 룜@k C&%pn=?# N?cֽCq54(5ZVLJ1e5i9=$&{ĎzZ_ջ D8K VXh]?Ut["ݩ|+V=,^d~'4e9xM1)n5QJ&b_fdE_jJUBF % U.  nX 0P$ 4t  0 0cC w@ U: U: U:Z  @m?UB  !U:##UBp+U:+m+UBY-U:--UBp0U:00UB3U: 4D4 B,5U:I5I5I5I5I5 D3555 0D5555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555555 AO5I6I6 0D7 D/S7 B7<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiX%2A`ArialTT3|X<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpiXXx6X@JQX@%2A`ArialTTt10cpiXXX2PQXP(($D  uM%(c(2$ !D   XXXX   0  ("$ X<=XXX  0   TPUPE#eӀg"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular,rAZ"Arial Regular XX  D     1    InMcMullenv.State,714So.2d368(Fla.1998),rehgdenied,(June10,1998),citedbythe `  majority,acomprehensivereviewofvariousstateandfederaljurisdictionalpositionsregardingtheadmissibilityofeyewitnessexperttestimonywaspresented.AlthoughthemajorityinthepresentcaseconcludesthatTennesseepermits,onadiscretionarybasis,experteyewitnesstestimony,McMullenand  : otherlegaltreatiseshave,ininterpretingWooden,concludedthatTennesseehasadoptedaperserule X  ofinadmissibility.SeeMcMullen,714So.2dat371;Annotation,ExpertsonEyewitnessTestimony,46   ALR4th1047,1105(1986). XX  D     2    Attheoutset,itisprudenttonotethethreeviewsontheadmissibilityofeyewitnessexpert `  testimonythathaveemerged:8 (1) Thediscretionaryview ,whichholdsthattheadmissionofexperttestimonyis  | withinthediscretionofthetrialjudge.Currentlythisisthemajorityviewamongbothfederalandstatecourts;  " " 8 (2) Theprohibitoryview ,whichexpresslyprohibitstheuseofthistypeofexpert  | testimony.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Holloway,971F.2d675(11thCir.1992),cert. B denied,Rudderv.UnitedStates,507U.S.962,113S.Ct.1390(1993);Statev. ` Goldsby,650P.2d952(Ore.Ct.App.1982);Commonwealthv.Simmons,662A.2d621   (Pa.1995),cert.denied,516U.S.1128,116S.Ct.945(1996);and  |  " " 8 (3) Thelimitedadmissibilityview ,whichconcludesthatthetrialcourtabusesits X  discretioninexcludingthisevidenceincaseswherethereisnosubstantialcorroboratingevidence.Onlytwocourtshaveadoptedthisposition.See,e.g.,United |  Statesv.Downing,753F.2d1224(3dCir.1985);Peoplev.McDonald,690P.2d709 :  (Cal.1984).  " " McMullen,712So.2d368,370(Fla.1998),rehgdenied,(June10,1998).Again,themajorityinthe t  presentcaseadoptsthemajoritydiscretionaryposition.However,IfindthatthispositionisinconsistentbothwithpriorholdingsofthiscourtandwithTenn.R.Evid.702. cXX  D     3    ItshouldbenotedthatbothWoodenandWardweredecidedpriortotheadoptionofthe `  TennesseeRulesofEvidence(effectivedateJanuary1,1990). XX  RdD     1    InMcMullenv.State,714So.2d368(Fla.1998),rehgdenied,(June10,1998),citedbythe `  majority,acomprehensivereviewofvariousstateandfederaljurisdictionalpositionsregardingtheadmissibilityofeyewitnessexperttestimonywaspresented.AlthoughthemajorityinthepresentcaseconcludesthatTennesseepermits,onadiscretionarybasis,experteyewitnesstestimony,McMullenand  : otherlegaltreatiseshave,ininterpretingWooden,concludedthatTennesseehasadoptedaperserule X  ofinadmissibility.SeeMcMullen,714So.2dat371;Annotation,ExpertsonEyewitnessTestimony,46   ALR4th1047,1105(1986). XX  RdD     5    Forexample,somepsychologistsinthisfieldarguethattheirresearchrevealedcommonlyheld `  misconceptionsofthegeneralpublic,e.g.,(1) Themoreconfidentawitnessis,themoreaccuratethe   testimonyislikelytobe,and(2) Policeofficersmakebetterwitnessesthanordinarycitizens.See  ~ McMullen,712So.2dat377(citingElizabethF.LoftusandJamesM.Doyle,EyewitnessTestimony:  < CivilandCriminal(3ded.1997)).<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi XX  D     4    Asillustration,inthepresentcase,theappellantsexpertwas preparedtoprovidetestimony `  abouttheareasoftheprocessofeyewitnessidentification,therelationshipbetweenstressandmemoryforanevent,crossracialidentification,therelationshipbetweentheconfidencethatawitnesshasintheaccuracyofhisorheridentificationandtheaccuracyofthatidentification,andtheeffecttimehasontheaccuracyofrememberingsomethingseen.,rAZ"Arial Regular XX  RdD     2    Attheoutset,itisprudenttonotethethreeviewsontheadmissibilityofeyewitnessexpert `  testimonythathaveemerged:8 (1) Thediscretionaryview ,whichholdsthattheadmissionofexperttestimonyis  | withinthediscretionofthetrialjudge.Currentlythisisthemajorityviewamongbothfederalandstatecourts;  " " 8 (2) Theprohibitoryview ,whichexpresslyprohibitstheuseofthistypeofexpert  | testimony.See,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Holloway,971F.2d675(11thCir.1992),cert. B denied,Rudderv.UnitedStates,507U.S.962,113S.Ct.1390(1993);Statev. ` Goldsby,650P.2d952(Ore.Ct.App.1982);Commonwealthv.Simmons,662A.2d621   (Pa.1995),cert.denied,516U.S.1128,116S.Ct.945(1996);and  |  " " 8 (3) Thelimitedadmissibilityview ,whichconcludesthatthetrialcourtabusesits X  discretioninexcludingthisevidenceincaseswherethereisnosubstantialcorroboratingevidence.Onlytwocourtshaveadoptedthisposition.See,e.g.,United |  Statesv.Downing,753F.2d1224(3dCir.1985);Peoplev.McDonald,690P.2d709 :  (Cal.1984).  " " McMullen,712So.2d368,370(Fla.1998),rehgdenied,(June10,1998).Again,themajorityinthe t  presentcaseadoptsthemajoritydiscretionaryposition.However,IfindthatthispositionisinconsistentbothwithpriorholdingsofthiscourtandwithTenn.R.Evid.702.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,rAZ"Arial Regular cXX  RdD     3    ItshouldbenotedthatbothWoodenandWardweredecidedpriortotheadoptionofthe `  TennesseeRulesofEvidence(effectivedateJanuary1,1990).<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,rAZ"Arial Regular XX  RdD     4    Asillustration,inthepresentcase,theappellantsexpertwas preparedtoprovidetestimony `  abouttheareasoftheprocessofeyewitnessidentification,therelationshipbetweenstressandmemoryforanevent,crossracialidentification,therelationshipbetweentheconfidencethatawitnesshasintheaccuracyofhisorheridentificationandtheaccuracyofthatidentification,andtheeffecttimehasontheaccuracyofrememberingsomethingseen.<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,rAZ"Arial Regular !XX  RdD  "   5    Forexample,somepsychologistsinthisfieldarguethattheirresearchrevealedcommonlyheld `  misconceptionsofthegeneralpublic,e.g.,(1) Themoreconfidentawitnessis,themoreaccuratethe   testimonyislikelytobe,and(2) Policeofficersmakebetterwitnessesthanordinarycitizens.See  ~ McMullen,712So.2dat377(citingElizabethF.LoftusandJamesM.Doyle,EyewitnessTestimony:  < CivilandCriminal(3ded.1997)).<6X9`(*Courier 12pt10cpi,rAZ"Arial Regular %XXXX%. X%X   Ad FILED%XX %.  October13,1998CecilW.CrowsonAppellateCourtClerkdAM  d,cAZ"Arial Regular$$$$'dxd(3$ !  -C<< CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$   1  ' dxdP Pd !D   ` XD  TR[A'Legal3'A' Legal3'T  XYXXX7 Y XXdd7r#*<,(j 8` `@Ef ` 8ttxP"`  rߛ `  INTHECOURTOFCRIMINALAPPEALSOFTENNESSEE `  @QQ:)ATNASHVILLE  @HH8)JUNE1998SESSION STATEOFTENNESSEE, h     )  p   `     h     )  p C.C.A.NO.01C019707CC00270  `   `  Appellee, h 򀀀    ) P   `     h     ) p WILLIAMSONCOUNTY  @  VS. `     h     ) 0   `     h     ) p HON.DONALDP.HARRIS,   EDDIEL.COLEY,JR., h     ) p JUDGE p  `     h     ) `  Appellant.  h     ) p (AggravatedRobbery)  P  @yy3) SEPARATECONCURRINGOPINION    XXXXY ` Iagreethattheprofferedexperttestimonyregardingeyewitnesstestimony  p shouldhavebeenexcluded.Iamunable,however,tojoinwiththemajorityinconcludingthattheadmissionornonadmissionofexperttestimonyshouldbeexercisedunderajudicialdiscretionstandardonacasebycasebasis.Althoughclearlysubjecttovaryinginterpretations,IbelievethecurrentstateofthelawinTennesseeonthisissueforbidstheintroductionofexperttestimonyregardingeyewitnessidentification.   XXX X  1      ׀SeeStatev.Wooden,658S.W.2d553(Tenn.Crim.App. +8"% 1983);seealsoStatev.Ward,712S.W.2d485(Tenn.Crim.App.1986).Indeed, d-$' JudgeByers,writingonbehalfofthiscourt,concludedthattheevaluationofthecredibilityofeyewitnesstestimonyisamatterwithintheprovinceofthejuryanddoesnotrequireexperttestimony.Wooden,658S.W.2dat557.BecauseIbelievethis 2h)-  reasoningsound,Iwouldadheretothepositionofaperseexclusionaryruleregarding 44+/ eyewitnessexperttestimony.   XXX X  2       `     ` TheintroductionofexperttestimonyiscontrolledbyRule702,Tenn.R.Evid.Thisruleprovidesthat [i]fscientific,technicalorotherspecializedknowledgewillsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffacttounderstandtheevidenceortodetermineafactin 0 issue,awitnessqualifiedasanexpert...maytestifyintheformofanopinionorotherwise.(Emphasisadded).WhethertheprofferedexperttestimonywillsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffactisthetouchstoneofRule702and,thus,isthe   ultimatefactorindeterminingwhethersucheyewitnessexperttestimonyisadmissible.>>   XXX X  3       `  `  ` Itisconcededthatexperttestimonyoneyewitnessidentificationisintroducedtoalertthejurytothefallibility,inaccuracies,andinconsistenciesofhumanperceptionbaseduponobjectivegeneralitiesadducedfromcontrolledexperiments.   XXX X  4      ׀See  generallyMcMullen,712So.2dat377(Anstead,J.,concurringinpartanddissenting  \ inpart).Indeed,asnotedinMcMullen,oneleadingcommentatoronthesubject "( advancestheargument thattheaveragejuroractuallyknowslittleaboutfactors T$ affectingtheaccuracyofeyewitnessidentificationsand [w]hilemostpeoplearesatisfiedinbelievingtheyhavecommonsense,thememoryprocessinvolvesfactorsthatareoftencounterintuitive.    XXX X  5      ׀Id.at377(citingCindyJ.OHagan,WhenSeeingis   NotBelieving:TheCaseforEyewitnessExpertTestimony,81Geo.L.J.741,76061 h (1993)(footnotesomitted)).Suchgeneralizationsdonotapplytoeverywitnessabilityofperceptionanddonotsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffactasthetrustworthinessof d  eyewitnessobservationsisnotgenerallybeyondthecommonknowledgeandexperienceoftheaveragejuror.Moreover,ifindeedthepurposeoftheexperttestimonyistocontradict commonsense,thetestimonywouldappeartobemoreakintoimpeachmenttestimonythansubstantialassistance.Insum,experttestimonyoneyewitnessidentificationisnotneededtoexplain commonsense.Themakingofjudgmentsofidentificationandtheawarenessofthefactorsbearingonthereliabilityofsuchjudgmentsaresomuchapartofthedaytodayexperiencesofordinarylaypersonsthatitmustbeconcludedthatthejuryiscapableofmakinganintelligentassessmentofthereliabilityoftheidentificationtestimonywithoutneedforexperttestimonyastothehumanperceptionalprocesses.SeeWooden,658S.W.2dat557; \$ see,e.g.,Peoplev.Kelley,631N.Y.S.2d926(N.Y.App.Div.1995),appealdenied, (&  664N.E.2d515(N.Y.1996).Accordingly,itisnotappropriateforthetrialjudgetotakefromthejurytheirowndeterminationastowhatweightoreffecttogivetotheevidenceoftheeyewitnessandtheidentifyingwitnesses,andtohavethatdeterminationputbeforethemonthebasisoftheexperttestimonyasproffered.See,e.g.,UnitedStates X-#( v.Daniels,64F.3d311(7thCir.1995),cert.denied,516U.S.1063,116S.Ct.745 $/%* (1996);Statev.Coleman,486So.2d995(La.Ct.App.),cert.denied,493So.2d633 0', (La.1986);Simmons,662A.2dat621;Peoplev.Anderson,630N.Y.S.2d77(N.Y. 2\). App.Div.),appealdenied,661N.E.2d1383(N.Y.1995). 4(+0  T6,2  ` Theadversarialsystemofjusticehastraditionallyrelieduponcrossexaminationasamechanismtoalertthejuryastoanyinaccuraciesorinconsistenciesinthetestimonyofaneyewitnessand,whencoupledwithpropercautionaryinstructionsregardingeyewitnesstestimony,thejuryispresumedtobeabletoassessthecredibilityandreliabilityofeachwitness.Itistheresponsibilityofcounsel,duringcrossexamination,toinquireintothewitnessopportunityforobservation,capacityforobservation,attention,interest,anddistractionordivisionofattention.Accordingly,Iconcludethattheproblemofpotentiallyunreliableeyewitnesstestimonyisnotresolvedbytheintroductionofexperttestimony,butrather,theproblemisalleviatedbypropercautionaryinstructionssettingforththefactorstobeconsideredinevaluatingeyewitnesstestimonyandotherexistingsafeguardssuchascrossexamination,closingargument,andthetrialcourtspowertosuppresstestimonyiftheidentificationprocedurerendereditunreliable.Theuseofexperttestimonycouldnotonlylengthenthetimeandincreasethecostoftrials,butcouldalsodivertthejurorsfromthetrueissuesorcausethemtoabdicatetheirroleasthearbiterofcredibilityinthecourtroom. ` Assuch,IadheretotheperseruleofexclusionpronouncedinStatev.  &  Wooden.#XXX X#    '"  `     h   ____________________________________ `     h   davDAVIDG.HAYES,Judge