What expert witness disclosure requirements must the State satisfy in Utah criminal cases? State v. Peraza Explained

The Utah Court of Appeals in State v. Peraza addressed critical issues regarding expert witness disclosure requirements in criminal cases and the court’s gatekeeping role under Rule 702 of the Utah Rules of Evidence.

Background and Facts

Peraza was charged with four counts of sodomy on a child based on allegations by the victim, who had recanted her accusations multiple times to her mother and a private investigator before testifying at trial. The case was continued twice due to discovery issues. Thirty-two days before trial, the State filed notice of an expert witness to testify about child disclosure patterns and recantations in sexual abuse cases. The notice included only the expert’s name, address, curriculum vitae, a one-sentence description of testimony topics, and citations to over 130 articles—but no expert report.

Key Legal Issues

The court addressed whether the State’s expert notice complied with Utah Code section 77-17-13 and whether the district court properly evaluated the expert’s qualifications under Rule 702. Additionally, the court considered whether denial of Peraza’s motion to continue for adequate preparation constituted an abuse of discretion.

Court’s Analysis and Holding

The court held that the State’s notice was inadequate under section 77-17-13, which requires either an expert report, written explanation of proposed testimony, or notice of cooperative consultation availability. The district court could not properly evaluate Rule 702’s requirements—that expert testimony be based on reliable principles and methods, sufficient facts or data, and reliable application to the facts—without adequate disclosure. The expert testified only from “academic” knowledge without reviewing case materials or interviewing the victim. The court found this error prejudicial because the case hinged on the victim’s credibility, and the expert testimony improperly bolstered her testimony about recantations.

Practice Implications

This decision reinforces that criminal prosecutors must provide detailed expert disclosures allowing courts to fulfill their gatekeeping function under Rule 702. Defense counsel should aggressively challenge inadequate disclosures and seek continuances when expert notices fail to provide sufficient detail for preparation. The ruling also suggests continued judicial skepticism toward statistical evidence about matters not susceptible to quantitative analysis, particularly regarding witness credibility.