1158, 1165 (App.1994) (“Preventing the jury from considering evidence which might negate the mens rea of the crime would seriously undermine the protections embodied within the sixth amendment’s jury trial provision.”). Harmless Error ¶22 The State contends that even if the trial court’s instruction misstated the law of temporary intoxication, the misstatement was inconsequential because the trial court found that McKeon’s intermittent use of his medications was abusive. The record, however, contains no such finding. Moreover, because the question of abuse of medications turned on the resolution of disputed facts and inferences, the question was one within the province of the jury, not the trial court, to resolve. See, e.g., State v. Neal, 143 Ariz. 93, 97, 692 P.2d 272, 276 (1984) (<HOLDING>). ¶ 23 The question remains, however, whether
holding that defendants truthfulness and the credibility of and weight to be given expert medical testimony are issues of fact for jury holding the resolution of questions regarding credibility and the weight given to testimony is a function of the family court judge who heard the testimony holding that the jury is the judge of the weight and credibility given to witness testimony holding the question of whether an accomplice is credible and the weight to be given to the testimony are issues for the jury to determine holding that the weight and credibility to be given to the opinions of expert witnesses is uniquely within the province of the fact finder  in this instance the trial court citation omitted