WPCX MwغK dd@7J\ aYꗳ ; k~`eگ '[NE r>n詉P5H$羋~[ݷ,ڒA̳/R3ɦT>j6:vfUK t_ Sl 5.ꇀSmidҝ*ȝU,!|tKl3QN^^e573r/bo߂l]J*HЀ(Ѩ&UU~w÷ͬo[t",Ӌx(}J©]iYf%2pUw ZQUYH&!AWȲ]{`рFI Rń2ui^+\S/ϩؒl5[@pϬld 2{`ڨz+"un$Clp"eb@rtP?l(b#\ % ^ # 0/ U<N w 4 z  i x mz  ]# 0DNQFE!d! 0?%?%?%-&'f|) 0) 0* 0+ 0, 0|- 0[. 07/ 00 00 01 02 0q3 0D4b5 05 05 06 0z7 0>8 09 09 0: 0; 0g< 03= 0= 0>G?UNEF/FEFH/K+N+NRRRRRRRRRRRRR 0SSSS BTT 0T D3WU D-U 0KUU ASVUV 0W 0DW AXHP LaserJet 4050 Series PCL 5e,,,,0AM) (`$.8dd8    ("  Z6Times New Roman RegularsM)opi C:\PROGRA~1\COREL\WORDPE~1\TEMPLATE\CUSTOM~1\REVISE~1.WPTC:\Program Files\Corel\WordPerfect Office 2000\Template\Custom WP Templates\revised standard opinion.wpt3|x U Ra$      5  XX  _]XXTheinstructionspromulgatedinDyleasarefollows: e     8  8`   Oneoftheissuesinthiscaseistheidentificationofthedefendantasthepersonwho  committedthecrime.Thestatehastheburdenofprovingidentitybeyonda L reasonabledoubt.Identificationtestimonyisanexpressionofbelieforimpression u bythewitness,anditsvaluemaydependuponyourconsiderationofseveralfactors. 9 Someofthefactorswhichyoumayconsiderare:` x` x 8  8`   (1)Thewitnesscapacityandopportunitytoobservetheoffender.Thisincludes,   amongotherthings,thelengthoftimeavailableforobservation,thedistancefrom I    whichthewitnessobserved,thelighting,andwhetherthepersonwhocommitted e thecrimewasaprioracquaintanceofthewitness;)` x` x 8  8`   (2)Thedegreeofcertaintyexpressedbythewitnessregardingtheidentificationand L thecircumstancesunderwhichitwasmade,includingwhetheritistheproductof u thewitnessownrecollection;9` x` x 8  8`   (3)Theoccasions,ifany,onwhichthewitnessfailedtomakeanidentificationof  \ thedefendant,ormadeanidentificationthatwasinconsistentwiththeidentification   attrial;andI  ` x` x 8  8`   (4)Theoccasions,ifany,onwhichthewitnessmadeanidentificationthatwas  l  consistentwiththeidentificationattrial,andthecircumstancessurroundingsuch  0  identifications.Y ` x` x 8  8`   Again,thestatehastheburdenofprovingeveryelementofthecrimecharged,and |  thisburdenspecificallyincludestheidentityofthedefendantasthepersonwho @  committedthecrimeforwhichheorsheisontrial.Ifafterconsideringthe i  identificationtestimonyinlightofalltheproofyouhaveareasonabledoubtthatthe -  defendantisthepersonwhocommittedthecrime,youmustfindthedefendantnot  guilty.P` x` x #XX]~#]XXId.at612.#XX] #ԁLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(#$  0   G Ra$      7  XX  _]XXSeeSmith,122F.3dat1358(quotingUnitedStatesv.Thevis,665F.2d616,641(5thCir.1982));Sabetta,680 e A.2dat933(quotingStatev.Porraro,404A.2d465,471(1979));Roscoe,910P.2dat647;Commonwealthv.Simmons, ) 662A.2d621,631(1995);Abraham,338N.C.at348,451S.E.2sat149.#XX]~#  Ra$      8  XX  _]XXSeeKime,99F.3dat884(quotingBachmanv.Leapley,953F.2d440,441(8thCir.1992));Statev.Poland, e 698P.2d183,193(1985);Curriev.Commonwealth,515S.E.2d335,338(1999).#XX]#  Ra$      9  XX  _]XXSeeGinn,87F.3dat370;Miles,585N.W.2dat372(quotingStatev.Helterbridle,301N.W.2d545,547 e (Minn.1980));Roscoe,910P.2dat647;Simmons,662A.2dat631;Abraham,451S.E.2dat149.#XX]#  Ra$      10  XX  _]XXSeeSmith,122F.3dat1359;Miles,585N.W.2dat372(quotingHalterbridle,301N.W.2dat547);_Santoli_, e 680N.E.2dat112021;Campbell,814P.2dat5;Statev.Kinsey,797P.2d424,42729(UtahCt.App.1990).#XX]#  Z Ra$      12  XX  _]XXSee,e.g.,Smith,122F.3dat1358;Gaines,926P.2dat649;Simmons,662A.2dat63031;Gibbsv. e Commonwealth,723S.W.2d871,874(Ky.Ct.App.1986).Byexcludingtheevidenceinquestionasaclass,itmay ) appearthatwearefindingsuchevidencepresumptivelyinadmissible.WeareundertheguidanceofBallard,Dyle,and  Schimpf.Wedonotintendtoremovefromthetrialjudgethediscretiontodecideaboutmarginallyadmissibleevidence. L Incasessuchastheoneatbar,however,theevidenceisclearlyinadmissible.#XX]#2G+J 0_level1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  ..  2( 4 <DL2   w Ra$      11  XX  _]XXOurconclusionisfurthersupportedbythefactthatthetrialcourtprovidedthejurywithinstructions e substantiallysimilartothosepromulgatedinDyle.#XX]#  Ra$      13  XX  _]XXSee,e.g.,Fed.R.Evid.702;Ariz.R.Evid.702;Ark.R.Evid.702;Conn.R.Evid.702;Fla.R.Evid. e 90.702;Minn.R.Evid.702;Nev.Rev.Stat.50.275(1999);N.C.R.Evid.702;R.I.R.Evid.702;Vt.R.Evid.702.#XX]# \\R3' Letter\2D+J 0_level2   ," <DL,23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2A+J 0_level3   ) <DL)23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2>+J 0_level4  ` &<<DL&23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2;+J 0_level5   #DL#23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  28+J 0_level6    DL 23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  25+J 0_level7  h DDL23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  22+J 0_level8   L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2/+J 0_level9    L23  ..  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levsl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levsl2   ," <DL,23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levsl3   ) <DL)23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levsl4  ` &<<DL&23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levsl5   #DL#23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  - -28J 0_levsl6    DL 23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levsl7  h DDL23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levsl8   L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levsl9    L23  Ԁ  2( 4 <DL2  2GJ 0_levnl1  X /%4 4 <DL/23   2( 4 <DL2  2DJ 0_levnl2   ," <DL,23   2( 4 <DL2  2AJ 0_levnl3   ) <DL)23   2( 4 <DL2  2>J 0_levnl4  ` &<<DL&23   2( 4 <DL2  2;J 0_levnl5   #DL#23   2( 4 <DL2  28J 0_levnl6    DL 23   2( 4 <DL2  25J 0_levnl7  h DDL23   2( 4 <DL2  22J 0_levnl8   L23   2( 4 <DL2  2/J 0_levnl9    L23   2( 4 <DL2   = Ra$      6  XX  _]XXSee,e.g.,UnitedStatesv.Hall,165F.3d1095,110308(7thCir.1999);UnitedStatesv.Smith,156F.3d1046, e 105254(10thCir.1998);UnitedStatesv.Smith,122F.3d1355,135760(11thCir.1997);UnitedStatesv.Kime,99 ) F.3d870,88385(8thCir.1996);UnitedStatesv.Ginn,87F.3d367,370(9thCir.1996);UnitedStatesv.Brien,59F.3d  274,27578(1stCir.1995);UnitedStatesv.Harris,995F.2d532,53436(4thCir.1993);Johnsonv.State,526S.E.2d L 549(Ga.2000);Statev._McClendon_,730A.2d1107,111416(1999);McMullenv.State,714So.2d368,36973(Fla. u 1998);Statev.Miles,585N.W.2d368,37072(Minn.1998);Commonwealthv._Santoli_,680N.E.2d1116,111821 9 (1997);Statev.Sabetta,680A.2d927,93233(R.I.1996);Statev.Roscoe,910P.2d635,646(1996);Whitev.State,  926P.2d291,292(1996);Statev.Abraham,451S.E.2d131,14849(1994);Jonesv.State,862S.W.2d242,24445  \ (1993);Statev.Wilson,508N.W.2d44,5051(Wis.Ct.App.1993).#XX]#(9 Z6Times New Roman Regular    e   Ra$      1  XX  _]XX(a)Aggravatedrobberyisrobberyasdefinedin3913401: e   (1)Accomplishedwithadeadlyweaponorbydisplayofanyarticleusedorfashionedtoleadthevictimto ) reasonablybelieveittobeadeadlyweapon;or    (2)Wherethevictimsuffersseriousbodilyinjury. L   (b)AggravatedrobberyisaClassBfelony. u Tenn.CodeAnn.3913402(1997).#XX]~#  Ra$      2  XX  _]XXThreeseparateopinionswerefiledbytheCourtofCriminalAppealspanel.Oneheldthattheadmissibility e ofexpertevidenceonthecredibilityofeyewitnesstestimonyshouldbedeterminedonacasebycasebasis,butaffirmed ) theexclusionoftheevidenceinthiscase.AconcurringopinionfoundthatTennesseehaspreviouslyfollowedaperse  exclusionaryrule.Thethird,adissentingopinion,concludedthatthecaseshouldberemandedforahearingtodetermine L whethertheexperttestimonyshouldbeadmitted. % Ra$      3  XX  _]XXWeobserveinitiallythatColeysargument,thathadthetestimonyinquestionbeenadmittedthejurywould e haveacquittedhim,isfatallyflawed.Theadmissionofthequestionedtestimonywouldnot,necessarily,leadtoacquittal. ) Thejury,consideringthetestimonyindispute,mayhaveconvictedColeyanyway.#XX]~#  Ra$      14  XX  _]XXInsoholding,wealsorejectColeysadditionalargumentthatthetrialcourtsexclusionofhisexperts e testimonyviolatedhisconstitutionalrighttopresentadefense.Whenconsideringwhethertheconstitutionalrightto ) presentadefensehasbeenviolatedbytheexclusionofevidence,theanalysisshouldconsiderwhether:(1)theexcluded  evidenceiscriticaltothedefense;(2)theevidencebearssufficientindiciaofreliability;and(3)theinterestsupporting L exclusionoftheevidenceissubstantiallyimportant.SeeChambersv.Mississippi,410U.S.284,298301,93S.Ct. u 1038,104749,35L.Ed.2d297,31012(1973).Forthereasonsstatedabove,theevidenceexcludedinthiscaseisnot 9 criticaltoColeysdefense.Thus,Coleysclaimthathisconstitutionalrightswereviolatediswithoutmerit.#XX]# Ra$      4  XX  _]XX469F.2d552(D.C.Cir.1972).#XX]~#(|G2a$ !.8Add8         0  XX d(|3$ !.8Add8     VVVV'dxd)!dxdx( $ Figure  1  ^_X`YE<<CLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(|3$ !.8Add8     ($$   1  X[Z&OLE 2.0 Box <=8C HKKKK !.8Add8     _A  8XXdd8 / >P?Oр@7 7 INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTENNESSEE  @$ATNASHVILLE0 p p(#p(# @CCFebruary8,2000Session $ XXA #AXX#  STATEOFTENNESSEEv.EDDIEL.COLEY,JR.XXA  " ;@   AppealbypermissionfromtheCourtofCriminalAppeals  " @ CircuitCourtforWilliamsonCounty   @ No.II895228DonaldP.Harris,Judge   @*AV) ` dE<m` A߈ n  @ No.M199700116SCR11CD#AXX|#XXAԀFiledOctober13,_2000_Ԉ i  AV) ` dE<@` A A   #AXX#XXAThisappealarisesfromthetrialcourtsexclusionofexperttestimonyconcerningeyewitness < identificationsoughttobeofferedbythedefendantinhistrialforaggravatedrobbery.Attrial, (x EddieL.Coley,Jr.,thedefendant,soughttointroduceexperttestimonyconcerningeyewitness d identification;attheStatesobjection,thetrialcourtrefusedtoadmitthetestimony.Coleyappealed P totheCourtofCriminalAppeals.Theintermediatecourtaffirmedhisconvictionandsentence. < AppealingtothisCourt,Coleycontendsthatthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninrefusingtoadmit ( theexperttestimony.Weacceptedreviewinthiscasetodeterminetheadmissibilityofexpert  testimonyconcerningeyewitnessidentification.Weholdthatthetestimonyprofferedhereis  inadmissibleunderTenn.R.Evid.702andthatthetrialcourt,therefore,properlyexcludedthe  testimonyofColeysexpertwitness.     Tenn.R.App.P.11Appeal;JudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsAffirmedon ` SeparateGrounds  L  AdolphoA.Birch,Jr.,J.,deliveredtheopinionofthecourt,inwhich  FrankF.Drowota,III,and $ t WilliamM.Barker,JJ.,joined.  JaniceM.Holder,J.,filedadissentingopinion,inwhichE. !`  RileyAnderson,C.J.,joined. !L! JohnP.CauleyandLarryD.Drolsum,Franklin,Tennessee,fortheappellant,EddieL.Coley,Jr. #$# PaulG.Summers,AttorneyGeneralandReporter,MichaelE.Moore,SolicitorGeneral,andKathy % % Morante,DeputyAttorneyGeneral,RonaldL.Davis,DistrictAttorneyGeneral,DerekSmith, &!& AssistantDistrictAttorneyGeneral,fortheappellee,StateofTennessee. '"' @66' OPINION  \)$)   I.FactsandProceduralHistory 4+&+    ,p', ?O ?e ?      Coleydoesnotchallengethesufficiencyoftheevidenceuponwhichhewasconvicted;thus, e  onlythosefactsnecessarytothisappealareprovided.OnJuly15,1995,SarahBlumbergand Q JenniferMcMillenwereworkingatanicecreamshopinBrentwood.Atapproximately1p.m.,a = maleenteredthestore.Afterplacinganorder,themalebrandishedagunandinstructedoneofthe ) employeestoputthestoresmoneyintoabag.Themalethenforcedbothemployeesintothestores  walkinfreezerwheretheyremaineduntiltheyheardacustomerenterthestore.Afterexitingthe   freezer,theycalledthepolice.     Thepoliceuncoverednophysicalevidenceatthecrimescene.Bothemployees,however,  ` separatelydescribedtherobberasanobese Blackmanaround5'9"tallandabouttwentyyears  L  old.Theemployeesthenhelpedthepoliceprepareseparatecompositepicturesoftherobber.Nine  8  daysaftertherobbery,BlumbergobservedaphotographiclineupwhichincludedColeyspicture. $  Sheidentifiedhimastherobber.Fivemonthsaftertherobbery,McMillensawthesame u  photographiclineup.ShetooidentifiedColey.   p  a    Attrial,thecriticalissuewasidentification.TheStatescasereliedheavilyonBlumbergs 9  andMcMillenspretrialandincourtidentificationsofColey.Coley,ontheotherhand,offeredan % alibidefense,maintainingthatanotherpersonhadcommittedtherobbery.Coleydesiredtoadduce  thetestimonyofMichaelG.Johnson,Ph.D.,J.D.,anexpertinthefieldofeyewitnessidentification.  TheStateobjectedtoJohnsonstestimonyonthegroundthatitwouldnotassistthejuryindeciding  theidentificationissue.ThetrialcourtagreedandrefusedtoadmitJohnsonstestimony. p   Thetrialcourt,nevertheless,allowedJohnsontomakeaprofferofhistestimonyforthe H record.Theprofferedtestimonyincludedinformationcoveringthefollowingtopics: 4 8  8`   1.0 ` x` xtheprocessofeyewitnessidentification;q  x x 8  8`   2.0 ` x` xtherelationshipbetweenstressandmemoryofanevent;I x x 8  8`   3.0 ` x` xcrossracialidentification;! x x 8  8`   4.0 ` x` xtheconfidencethewitnesseshaveintheaccuracyoftheir   identificationsandtheactualaccuracyoftheiridentifications;!  x x 8  8`   5.0 ` x` xtheeffectoftimeontheaccuracyofmemory;and#X" x x 8  8`   6.0 ` x` xthesuggestibilityofthephotographiclineupusedinthis %0!$ case.&"% x x   m'#&   ThejuryfoundColeyguiltyofaggravatedrobbery,@ #  1      ׀andsentencedhimtotwelveyearsinthe e  DepartmentofCorrection.Coleyappealed,contendingthatthetrialcourterredinexcludingthe Q expertstestimonyandthatthesentencewasexcessive.Theintermediateappellatecourtaffirmed = Coleysconvictionandsentence.A #  2      ׀OnappealtothisCourt,Coleycontendsthatthetrialcourtabused ) itsdiscretioninexcludingJohnsonstestimonyandthathewasprejudicedbyitsexclusion.B  #  3      ׀The  State,ontheotherhand,contendsthatJohnsonstestimonywasproperlyexcluded.Weaccepted   reviewinthiscasetodeterminetheadmissibilityoftheprofferedexperttestimonyconcerning   eyewitnessidentification.  t @JJII.StandardofReview  L    Determinationsoftheadmissibilityofexperttestimonyaremadewithinthesounddiscretion $  ofthetrialcourt.Statev.Ballard,855S.W.2d557,562(Tenn.1993).Thestandardofreviewon u  appealiswhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretioninexcludingtheexperttestimony.Theabuse a  ofdiscretionstandardcontemplatesthatbeforereversaltherecordmustshowthatajudge applied M  anincorrectlegalstandard,orreachedadecisionwhichisagainstlogicorreasoningthatcausedan 9  injusticetothepartycomplaining.Statev.Shirley,6S.W.3d243,247(Tenn.1999);Statev. % Shuck,953S.W.2d662,669(Tenn.1997).  @#III.Analysis    Asageneralrule,theadmissibilityofexperttestimonyinTennesseeisgovernedbyTenn. \ R.Evid.701706.ThiscaseisgovernedspecificallybyTenn.R.Evid.702whichprovidesthat H experttestimonyisadmissibleifitwill substantiallyassistthetrieroffacttounderstandthe 4 evidenceortodetermineafactinissue....(Emphasisadded.).=XXXXExperttestimonyregarding   eyewitnessidentificationarguablyfailstosatisfytheplainmeaningofthislanguage.Eyewitness q  testimonyhasnoscientificortechnicalunderpinningswhichwouldbeoutsidethecommon ] understandingofthejury;therefore,experttestimonyisnotnecessarytohelpjurors understand I theeyewitnessstestimony.Moreover,experttestimonyabouttheeyewitnesssaccuracydoesnot e aidthejuryindeterminingafactinissuebecausethequestionwhetheraneyewitnessshouldbe Q believedisnota factinissuebutratheracredibilitydetermination. = #XXX=X%#  TennesseeRuleofEvidence702ismorestringentthanitsfederalcounterpart.Asamatter  ofcontrast,whileFed.R.Evid.702requiresonlythattheevidence assistthetrieroffact,Tenn.   R.Evid.702requiresthatexperttestimony substantiallyassistthetrieroffact....CompareFed.   R.Evid.702(emphasisadded)withTenn.R.Evid.702. Thisdistinctionindicatesthatthe  t probativeforceofthetestimonymustbestrongerbeforeitisadmittedinTennessee.McDanielv.  ` CSXTransp.,Inc.,955S.W.2d257,264(Tenn.1997).InMcDaniel,wediscussedtheprinciples  L  guidingatrialcourt'sdeterminationwhethertoadmitscientificortechnicalevidence.First,the  8  evidencemustberelevanttoafactatissueinthecase.Tenn.R.Evid.401,402.Second,theexpert $  mustbequalifiedbyspecializedknowledge,skill,experience,training,oreducationinthefieldof u  expertise,andthetestimonyinquestionmustsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffacttounderstandthe a  evidenceordetermineafactinissue.Tenn.R.Evid.702;McDaniel,955S.W.2dat265;Statev. M  Begley,956S.W.2d471,475(Tenn.1997).Finally,whentheexpertwitnessoffersanopinionor 9  statesaninference,theunderlyingfactsordatauponwhichtheexpertreliedmustbetrustworthy. % Tenn.R.Evid.703;McDaniel,955S.W.2dat265.Thereliabilityofscientificevidenceis  determinedbyconsideringthefollowingnonexclusivelistoffactors:    8 ` (1)whetherthescientificevidencehasbeentestedandthe p methodologywithwhichithasbeentested;(2)whethertheevidence \ hasbeensubjectedtopeerrevieworpublication;(3)whethera H potentialrateoferrorisknown;(4)whether...theevidenceis 4 generallyacceptedinthescientificcommunity;and(5)whetherthe   expert'sresearchinthefieldhasbeenconductedindependentof q  litigation.]` x` x McDaniel,955S.W.2dat265.Here,thequestioniswhethertheevidenceisinadmissiblebecause 5 experttestimonydescribingthegeneralreliabilityofeyewitnesstestimony isnotreliableenough ! tosubstantiallyassistajuryinaninquiryofwhetherthetwoemployeestestimonyshouldbe   believed.Seee.g.,Statev.Ballard,855S.W.2d557,562(Tenn.1993).     Thoughtheadmissibilityofeachexpertstestimonygenerallyrestswithinthesound "l! discretionofthetrialjudge,Tennesseecourtshave,onoccasion,excludedspecificcategoriesof #X" experttestimony.SeeStatev.Ballard,855S.W.2d557,56163(Tenn.1993);seealsoStatev. $D # Schimpf,782S.W.2d186,18995(Tenn.Crim.App.1989).ApplyingTenn.R.Evid.702tothe %0!$ instantcase,wefirstnotethatthiscaseisanalogoustoStatev.Ballard.InBallard,weheldthat &"% experttestimonyconcerningsymptomsofposttraumaticstresssyndromeexhibitedbyvictimsof m'#& childabusewasinadmissible.855S.W.2dat563.Inreachingthisconclusionwereasonedthat: Y(#' 8  8`   [i]nthecontextofthecriminaltrial,expertscientifictestimony 1*%) solicitsthedangerofundueprejudiceorconfusingtheissuesor +&* misleadingthejurybecauseofitsauraofspecialreliabilityand  ,'+ trustworthiness.Thisspecialauraofexpertscientifictestimony, e especiallytestimonyconcerningpersonalityprofilesofsexually Q abusedchildren,mayleadajurytoabandonitsresponsibilityasafact = finderandadoptthejudgmentoftheexpert.Suchevidencecarries ) strongpotentialtoprejudiceadefendant'scausebyencouragingajury  toconcludethatbecausethechildrenhavebeenidentifiedbyan   experttoexhibitbehaviorconsistentwithposttraumaticstress   syndrome,broughtonbysexualabuse,thenitismorelikelythatthe  t defendantcommittedthecrime.Testimonythatchildrenexhibit  ` symptomsorcharacteristicsofposttraumaticstresssyndromeshould  L  notsufficetoconfirmthefactofsexualabuse.Thesymptomsofthe  8  syndromearenotlikeafingerprintinthatitcanclearlyidentifythe $  perpetratorofacrime.Experttestimonyofthistypeinvadesthe u  provinceofthejurytodecideonthecredibilityofwitnesses.a ` x` x 855S.W.2dat56162(internalcitationsomitted). 9    Here,asinBallard,wearepresentedwithtestimonyofageneralnaturedesignedtoaffect  thejurorsdecisiononthecredibilityofwitnesses.UsingtheBallardrationale,experttestimony  concerningeyewitnessidentification solicitsthedangerofundueprejudiceorconfusingtheissues  ormisleadingthejury....Id.at561.Asaresult,itmay leadajurytoabandonitsresponsibility p asfactfinderandadoptthejudgmentoftheexpert,ratherthan assistthejuryinmakingitsown \ determinationofcredibility.SeeId. H   Wealsonotethattheclosestwehavecome,thusfar,totheissueposedinthecaseunder   submissionwasinStatev.Dyle,899S.W.2d607(Tenn.1995).InDyle,wewereaskedtoapprove q  certainjuryinstructions,knownastheUnitedStatesv.TelfaireE #  4      ׀instruction,givenincaseswhere ] identificationoftheperpetratorisamaterialissue.Id. [A]cknowledgingthataccuracyof I eyewitnesstestimonyisaffectablebytheusualuniversalfallibilitiesofhumansenseperceptionand 5 memory,werejectedbothourownpatternjuryinstructiononidentityapprovedforusein ! TennesseeaswellasthespecificinstructioncreatedbytheDistrictofColumbiaCircuitCourtof   AppealsinTelfaire,_ T #  5      _Ԁchoosinginsteadtopromulgateourownnewinstructionforcasesinvolving   eyewitnessidentifications.Id.at612.InrejectingtheTelfaireinstruction,wenotedits e inappropriateness becauseitimpermissiblycommentsontheevidence;thusinvadingtheprovince Q ofthejury.Id.Thus,weemphasizedthattheassessmentofwitnesscredibilityandtheroleoffact = finderisalwayslefttothejury,regardlessoftheissuepresentinthecase.Moreover,the ) reassessmentandrevampinginDyleofourpatternjuryinstructionsonidentificationsuggests,by  analogy,thatexperttestimonyontheissueofidentityshouldbeexcluded.     Thoughwehavenotspecificallyaddressedtheissueoftheadmissibilityofexpertevidence  t concerningthereliabilityofeyewitnesstestimony,theCourtofCriminalAppealshasarticulated  ` severalreasonsforexcludingsuchevidence.InStatev.Ward,712S.W.2d485,487(Tenn.Crim.  L  App.1986),thecourtstated,  8  8  8`   Weareoftheopinionthattherearetoomanyvariablesinvolved u  includingindividualpowerofobservation,individualreactionto a  stressorthethreatofviolence,thevisualacuityofaparticular M  witness,aswellasnumbersofgeneral,commonfactorsunamenable 9  tochartingandcategorizing.%` x` x AndinStatev.Wooden,658S.W.2d553,556(Tenn.Crim.App.1983),thecourtfoundthe  following:  8  8`   Toadmitsuchtestimonyineffectwouldpermittheproponents \ witnesstocommentontheweightandcredibilityofopponents H witnessesandopenthedoortoabarrageofmarginallyrelevant e psychologicalevidence.Moreover,weconclude,asdidthetrial Q judge,thattheproblemsofperceptionandmemorycanbeadequately = addressedincrossexaminationandthatthejurycanadequately ) weightheseproblemsthroughcommonsenseevaluation.` x` x   Inotherjurisdictionsaswell,anoverwhelmingmajorityofcourtshaveupheldthetrial   courtsfindingthatthetestimonyisinadmissible.< #  6      ׀Thesecourtshaveprovidedmanyreasonsfor  t excludingthistypeofexperttestimony.Forexample,somecourtshaveupheldtheexclusion  ` becausesuchtestimonyisunhelpfulandsimplyoffersgeneralities.SeeBrien,59F.3dat277.As  L  theNebraskaSupremeCourthasnoted:  8  8  8`   theknowledgeofbehavioralscientists,suchaspsychologists,is u  probabilistic,couchedintermsofaverages,standarddeviations, a  curves,anddifferencesbetweengroups.Acourt,however,isnot M  concernedwiththeaverageeyewitnessreliabilitybutwiththe 9  reliabilityofthespecificeyewitnessbeforeit,whomayvaryfromthe % averageinprobabilisticbutultimatelyunknownways.Itisnotthe  researchbehavioralsocialscientistwhoisinapositiontoassessa  specificwitnessreliability;thejury,whichviewsthewitnessasan  individual,isbestabletocollectivelydetermine,onthebasisof p commonhumanexperienceasyetunsurpassedbylaboratoryresearch, \ howtoweighwhatanindividualwitnesshastosay.H` x` x Statev.Trevino,432N.W.2d503,520(1988).     Othercourtshaveexcludedthistypeoftestimonybecause [s]uchexperttestimonywillnot I aidthejurybecauseitaddressesanissueofwhichthejuryisalreadygenerallyaware,anditwillnot 5 contributetotheirunderstandingoftheparticulardispute.Hall,165F.3dat1104(quotingUnited !  Statesv.Hudson,884F.2d1016,1024(7thCir.1989)).Thus,the reliabilityofeyewitness   identificationiswithintheknowledgeofjurorsandexperttestimonygenerallywouldnotassistthem e ....McClendon,730A.2dat1114(citationomitted)._ #  7      _Ԁ Q    Inexcludingexperttestimonyconcerningeyewitnessidentification,courtshavealsonoted ) thatthe minimalprobativevalueoftheprofferedexperttestimonyisoutweighedbythedangerof  jurorconfusion.Kime,99F.3dat884.Suchtestimonyhasthepotentialtoconfuseandmislead   thejuryandcreateprolongedtrialsbybattlesofexperts.SeeBrien,59F.3dat277;Campbellv.   People,814P.2d1,5(Colo.1991).  t   Finally,courtshavereasonedthatthistestimonyinvadestheprovinceofthejuryby  L  evaluatingwitnesscredibility.Campbell,814P.2dat5(citationomitted). #  8      ׀Ratherthanpermit  8  expertstotestifyinsuchcases,usurpingafunctiontraditionallylefttojuries,courtshavefoundthat $   juriesmaybemadetounderstandpsychologicalfactorswhichaffecttheaccuracyofan u  identificationwhenthesefactorsarebroughttolightatcrossexaminationandduringclosing a  argument.Statev.Percy,595A.2d248,252(1990).Thus, jurorsusingcommonsenseandtheir M  facultiesofobservationcanjudgethecredibilityofaneyewitnessidentification,especiallysince 9  deficienciesorinconsistenciesinaneyewitnessstestimonycanbebroughtoutwithskillful % examination.Smith,156F.3dat1053(quotingHarris,995F.2dat535)., #  9      ׀Courtshavealso  reasonedthatalongwithcrossexamination,juryinstructionsspecificallytailoredtocasesinvolving  eyewitnessidentificationsufficientlyaidthejuryindeterminingthecredibilityofthewitnesses.As  theKansasSupremeCourthasreasoned: p 8  8`   wehaveconcludedthatrequiringtrialcourtstoadmitthistypeof H expertevidenceisnottheanswertothe[eyewitnessidentification] 4 problem.Webelievethattheproblemcanbealleviatedbyaproper   cautionaryinstructiontothejurywhichsetsforththefactorstobe q  consideredinevaluatingeyewitnesstestimony.Suchinstruction, ] coupledwithvigorouscrossexaminationandpersuasiveargumentby I defensecounseldealingrealisticallywiththeshortcomingsand 5 troublespotsoftheidentificationprocess,shouldprotecttherightsof ! thedefendantandatthesametimeenablethecourtstoavoid   problemsinvolvedintheadmissionofexperttestimonyonthis   subject.! ` x` x   "l! Statev.Gaines,926P.2d641,647(1996)(quotingStatev.Warren,635P.2d1236(1981)). #  10       e    GovernedbythefundamentalprinciplesofMcDaniel,andtherationaleofBallardandDyle, = wefindthatexperttestimonyconcerningeyewitnessidentificationsimplyoffersgeneralitiesandis ) notspecifictothewitnesswhosetestimonyisinquestion.Moreover,weareoftheopinionthatthe  subjectofthereliabilityofeyewitnessidentificationiswithinthecommonunderstandingof   reasonablepersons.Therefore,suchexperttestimonyisunnecessary.Itmaymisleadandconfuse,   anditcouldencouragethejurytoabandonitsresponsibilityasfactfinder.Suchresponsibilityisa  t taskreservedforandablyperformedbythejury,aidedbyskillfulcrossexaminationandthejury  ` instructionpromulgatedinDylewhenappropriate.Forthesereasons,wefindthatgeneraland  L  unparticularizedexperttestimonyconcerningthereliabilityofeyewitnesstestimony,whichisnot  8  specifictothewitnesswhosetestimonyisinquestion,doesnotsubstantiallyassistthetrieroffact. $  Thus,weholdthatsuchtestimonyisinadmissibleunderTenn.R.Evid.702andthatthetrialcourt, u  therefore,properlyexcludedJohnsonstestimony. #  11      ׀ a    Werecognizethatweareintheminorityofjurisdictionswhichfindsuchtestimonyperse 9  inadmissible,ratherthanleavingthedeterminationofadmissibilitytothediscretionofthetrial % court.h #  12      ׀Nonetheless,weareconvincedthataperseruleofexclusionisappropriate.First,leaving  theadmissibilityofthistypeofexperttestimonytothediscretionofthetrialcourtwouldrequireus,  atleastimplicitly,torejectthesoundreasoningofBallard.Second,therulesofevidencefromthose  jurisdictionswhichleavetheadmissibilityofexperttestimonyconcerningeyewitnessidentification p tothediscretionofthetrialcourtrequire,asdoesFed.R.Evid.702,onlythatexperttestimony \  assistthetrieroffact.  #  13      ׀UnderTenn.R.Evid.702,however,experttestimonyisadmissibleonly H ifit substantiallyassiststhetrieroffact.(Emphasisadded.).Thus,Tenn.R.Evid.702requires 4 agreatershowingofprobativeforcethanthefederalrulesofevidenceortherulesofevidencefrom   thosestatesthathavefollowedthefederalrules,makingtheperseexclusionappropriate.See q  McDaniel,955S.W.2dat264. ]  !   IV.Conclusion e     Forthereasonsarticulatedabove,generalandunparticularizedexperttestimonyconcerning = eyewitnesstestimony,whichisnotspecifictothewitnesswhosetestimonyisinquestion,is ) inadmissibleunderTenn.R.Evid.702,andthetrialcourtproperlyexcludedthetestimonyof_Coley_s  expert.C #  14      ׀ThejudgmentoftheCourtofCriminalAppealsis,therefore,affirmedontheseparate   groundsstatedherein.       Costsofthisappealareassessedtothedefendant,EddieL.Coley,Jr.  `    `     h     ___________________________________ u     `     h     ADOLPHOA.BIRCH,JR.,JUSTICE