1. Commonwealth v. Lopez (2004) 578 PA 545 - Expert witness permitted to testify about victim’s state of mind before death. Strangulation is terrifying. The average lay person is generally unacquainted with the physical process accompanying ligature strangulation.
2. People v. Rick, 2007 WL 122860 (Michigan) – Paramedics and nurse qualified to testify that choking to the point of unconsciousness could cause brain damage, loss of motor function or possibly death. Court also found their testimony was based on common sense.
3. Carter v. State (2010) 235 P.3d 221- Law Enforcement Officer qualified to testify about strangulation/suffocation. Officer qualified to give expert testimony as to petechiae and delayed bruising in strangulation victims. No requirement that a witness possess a particular license or academic degree.
4. State v. Delgado (2013) 232 Ariz. 182 - Whether a witness is qualified as an expert is to be construed liberally.
5. People v. Jackson (2013) 221 Cal.App.4th 1222 - Manual strangulation is not a matter of common knowledge and is proper subject of expert testimony.
6. Nebraska v. Cox, 21 Neb. App. (2014) – Forensic nurse qualified as an expert in a strangulation case and her testimony was not subject to Daubert hearing.
7. State v. Perry, 159 A.3d 840 (2017) - Forensic Nurse qualified and testified as a “blind witness”. Expert did not review any of facts of the case, did not give an opinion as to whether or not the victim had been strangled but simply testified about strangulation generically.
8. State v. Ritesman, 390 Mont. 399 (2018) – Expert permitted to testify about strangulation and trauma. Trauma victims often have difficulty providing a consistent, coherent narrative of an assault.
9. State v. Hampton, 2018 WL 4055659 (Minnesota, Unpublished) - Prosecutor should have notified the defense attorney that officer who investigated the case had attended the Advanced Course on Strangulation Prevention and would have qualified as an expert due to his specialized training.
10. Kingsbury v. State, 625 S.W.3d 686 (2021, Texas) – Expert testimony from LCSW describing origin of various teaching and assessment tools and that such tools were used throughout domestic violence field to explain victim's tolerance of her abusive relationship with defendant when, during her testimony, she appeared to try to minimize history of domestic violence in her relationship with defendant was reliable under standard applicable to soft sciences, in prosecution for domestic violence aggravated assault with deadly weapon. Expert’s qualifications included attending advanced course and FJC conferences. Victim was 22 on DA 20.
