State of Tennessee, Appellant v. Merlin Eugene Shuck, Appellee

Summary

The Tennessee Supreme Court held that expert neuropsychological testimony that a defendant's cognitive decline rendered him more susceptible to inducement is generally admissible to support an entrapment defense if it will substantially assist the trier of fact under Tenn. R. Evid. 702, and that such testimony is not objectionable merely because it embraces an ultimate issue under Tenn. R. Evid. 704. Because the trial court excluded the testimony solely on the invalid ground that it invaded the province of the jury, it applied an incorrect legal standard and abused its discretion. The exclusion was not harmless error under Tenn. R. Crim. P. 52(a) because inducement and predisposition were hotly contested and the jury lacked expert assistance on the defendant's susceptibility. The Court affirmed the Court of Criminal Appeals' reversal of the convictions and remanded for a new trial.