context: Given our conclusion that the expert's testimony was not relevant under CRE 401, we necessarily reject defendant's argument that it was admissible as res gestae evidence.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 156 P.3d 371, 378
citation_a.parenthetical: to be admissible under CRE 702, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable
citation_a.sentence: See People v. Skufca, 176 P.3d 83, 86 (Colo.2008) (“[t]o be admissible, res gestae evidence must also be relevant under CRE 401”); see also People v. Ramirez, 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Colo.2007) (to be admissible under CRE 702, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 176 P.3d 83, 86
citation_b.parenthetical: "[t]o be admissible, res gestae evidence must also be relevant under CRE 401"
citation_b.sentence: See People v. Skufca, 176 P.3d 83, 86 (Colo.2008) (“[t]o be admissible, res gestae evidence must also be relevant under CRE 401”); see also People v. Ramirez, 156 P.3d 371, 378 (Colo.2007) (to be admissible under CRE 702, expert testimony must be both relevant and reliable).