ÃÛèÖÖ±²¥

The justices rejected arguments by Mark Haskie Jr. that he did not get a fair trial because jurors heard from an expert witness who described the general behavioral tendencies of adult victims of domestic abuse.

He argued the testimony essentially suggested to the jury that because he has certain characteristics he must have committed the crime.

But Justice Robert Brutinel, writing for the unanimous court, said the trial judge did nothing wrong.

“Because the testimony helped the jury understand the victim’s behavior and was more probative than prejudicial, the trial court did not err in admitting it,� he wrote.

According to court records, Haskie assaulted his girlfriend, identified only as P.J., at a Flagstaff motel after searching through messages on her phone and threatening her by saying, “I told you I would kill you if you cheated on me.�

That same day, P.J. wrote a statement for police explaining that Haskie had beaten and choked her — evidence that was corroborated from physical evidence from the motel.

Haskie was arrested nearly a year later. Shortly after his arrest, P.J. wrote two letters to police recanting earlier statements, claiming her injuries were from a bar fight and that Haskie was innocent.

At trial, prosecutors presented recorded phone calls Haskie made from jail, including several to P.J. before she recanted.

In one, Haskie dictated a story for her to tell police, apologized to her and promised to marry her. And in another, P.J. responded, “Well, maybe you shouldn’t have tried to kill me.�

At trial, however, she said she didn’t remember who had beaten her because she had been drinking.

Dr. Kathleen Ferraro, listed as an expert in domestic violence, told jurors it is “not unusual� for victims to return to relationships. She said reasons range from fear or threats to those who get pressure from a victim’s own family or from their own shame.

And she said it is “a very common response� for victims to blame themselves.