Superior court did not err in allowing expert testimony of appellant Rustin. Knowing nothing about the case but being an expert in social work and victim services as well as a critical incident coordinator for the police, Melissa Brickhouse-Thomas testified. She spoke about trauma and psychological responses to sexual violence and explained the “rape myth” and how people react differently after their sexual assaults. She deals with victims of sexual violence and said it’s common for victims to not fight back during assault, to not report it to the police, and victims may not recount order of the violence. Rustin argued because he believed "the only lesson the jury could take away from [the] testimony was that any behavior exhibited by a person…show more content… Henderson, 210 Ariz. 561, 567: "Accordingly, [Rustin] 'bears the burden to establish that "(1) error exists, (2) the error is fundamental, and (3) the error caused him prejudice." In State v. James: Rustin doesn’t dismiss Brickhouse-Thomas's expertise, he claims the superior court erred in finding that her testimony would "help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue." Brickhouse-Thomas did testify that "everybody reacts differently" to being sexually assaulted, thus her testimony was proper. Rustin's trial defense was the victim consented and the State’s testimony dispelled misconceptions of sexual assault victim’s responses. The victim testified her response was self-preservation and she was afraid Rustin would hit her again if she did not comply with demands. The victim testified she did not report it to others or call authorities until she felt safe. She had difficulty during the investigation and at trial recounting the exact instances and sequences of the sexual assaults. The superior court did not abuse its discretion in concluding that Brickhouse-Thomas's opinions would help the jury to understand the victim's testimony. The testimony satisfied Rule 702(a), and no error
