about the child sexual abuse combinations and grow he was wrong in that an expert is required to tell the jury about the child sexual abuse accommodations in the room and in this particular case were all there was not syndrome so to speak i mean that's one of the reasons he gave was that i find that people are you know there's only one expert that's the person that created it i think others are qualified to educate the jury i think that's part of it but i think really what he had decided was she wasn't an expert and that i mean he's severely limited her testimony but then allowed her to get together and talk about the syndrome which she wasn't qualified to testify about her background should read two articles on the syndrome she had intended to find the words seminar or training and it was about five days long she said it was only a portion of it and she also indicated that she had read some other articles or attended some women are i think and she directed everything to child abuse issues she didn't specifically say that she you know studied child sexual  abuse and this is really a testament to require courts classify witnesses either experts or lay witnesses and that we've established boundaries for both because when you learn the lines of the classification as demonstrated by this case you lead to an unqualified witness explaining not her observations but rather general information about a subject reserved for expert the result of which in this case was to improperly bolster the witness's testimony  excuse me of the alleged victim's testimony for instance people these symptoms which the appellant cites we have a similar situation that we have a person who gets up and says well fifty percent of people really can't credibility and it was a comment on her credibility really well you know if these symptoms of fire then she must credible i mean comes from places soothing and she's been abused so it's  expert but it also talks about how you can't have someone get up there and testify to things that are relevant to the case based on facts there are evidence i mean get back there the example given ha the five point four elements of the syndrome but i keep different things and things in this case that simpkins was dealing with the expert here we're not dealing with an expert we're dealing with someone who read to her on the syndrome and then was able to kind of g they the deficiency is we don't know sure maybe she could have been an expert on child abuse issues but here it's not developed enough that she has to pick an expertise in child sexual abuse and also that they're saying that the child abuse accommodation and can come in i stablished that it is recognized or at least accepted so that's part of it you don't have to do it right here and i think so long as the expert is qualified then it does come it i mean i think that's what but also there's this other avenue into it in this case because he's also making the finding that a lay over could in fact apply it on its own so he's almost say seems to be implying anyway that there isn't anything here that they can't understand or that's not otherwise that they might not understand i mean he's saying well you don't have to tell the jury that this person is you know consistent or that she's this she's exhibiting symptoms that are consistent with the syndrome but again the problem is a she's not an expert but also if it's true that the jury can more in line with the syndrome then i think he's making her irrelevant i mean she is getting up there and just testifying in general terms about a syndrome she's read about twice and then she's leaving it up to the usually to get up to the jury to apply it later in the jury room but they're coming from a place of already assuming she's been abused and then having to fight on her own when the case was it you have to have an ax her a explain it to boots well i think we do it so that we don't have germs in there on their own go ahead well ok she doesn't have this one but he kind of explained that or she kind of explained that she might have this one  using irrelevant evidence that may or may not apply to the facts to possibly determine who's more credible and in a case like this one were comes down to credibility you have mr winfield's version of the events and mercedes version of the events if you have something like this it's just a general framework testified to by someone that's not an expert and then they're supposed to go back and on their own apply you know try to find out if it applies to the case you're bolstering her in the sense that he's explained she's explained away what otherwise might be marks against her credibility like not being able to understand her not going to testify to specifics you know contradicting herself on the stand so i think that's are unreliable in this amount of time and you're just hoping that something sticks with the jury you're hoping that the jury finds the witness at issue either incredible or credible and i do notice that my time is almost  i briefly very briefly wanted to touch on argument three again this is a fairly fact sipek argument but i mean the question presented is always or even three i meant three is whether the which essentially that's what the trial court was getting at when the child court said that whether she was going to certify her as quote qualified to testify in child court for both actually took the stand said that it was going to just herman if she's a ruling she went on to give her testimony and then the defense starts saying well actually the defense is also complaining well they wanted an instruction to say well she's not testifying as an expert in the trial court says no i'm not getting to that issue and there's also a  reference in there to the to be an expert in this field and it's a reference to whether the prosecutor's talking about expertise in the field of child sex abuse so there is a question as to what is the relevant field argument but just to state the stare for expertise is knowledge of specialized nature which of course the the topic of the combination syndrome is that it's knowledge especially nature beyond that of an average person and just not take a lot of expertise in the state manner expert testimony is limited so that statutes like this if there are contrary if there interrogation of the common law have to be strictly construed so therefore if the only thing about the statute assuming there is no other actual legislative history marks for example to draw upon just simply these words i cannot see enough to overrule sort of like the standard practice for every other topic affects or they could be subject of expert testimony to show that somehow this is a changing the stan such as the delayed reporting which is what the trial court emphasized also the fact of this was carried on in secret and the elements of like a trap in a conversation where that the abuse continues and continues and continues until she reaches close to balance however the issue of whether they had and in fact engaged in any sexual contact whatsoever between she was aged twelve to eighteen years of age in which case after eighteen he's getting at trial and this offens was eighteen and in fact the day after she's going to the hotel in springfield buying her room for a couple hours for sixty dollars claiming then a trial that she was ill wanted to lay down and it seems like the jury can look at that say ok the day after she's a teen they are having intercourse and they think this they can easily recheck their credibility defense explanation her for what's very highly incriminating so they are in looking at that circumstance and on top of all the other evidence of several times that they're alone and i'd situations i had to take the presents for christmas back they went by themselves it would have taken twenty minutes they were gone like forty five pound answering the phone and they'd come back and she's got less shot eyes and have been crying so there's other testimony in the record circumstantially that there was some sort of relationship that would support the sexual nature of being existed in existence for eighteen years the page circumstantial whether the case were connected to the facts but whether it could be connected to the facts i mean connected by the witness to the facts but whether the facts of the case could be connected with the expert testimony and i believe the symptoms simp talked about were at all closely relevant to the facts of the in this case and therefore there was nothing for really the jury to hear because those were not connected connected facts or connect the ball to the facts not the trucker refusing to explicitly characterize the witness as an expert at trial in front of the jury but i worry that's an interesting question that was raised but i think you're right that's how things usually work but never syndrome yes that she did not and correct the errors as far as what the defense was there was a little talk about what the defense council was trying to do and he didn't want her opinion and defense counsel from the very beginning did not want this fall  testify prior to the start of all this there was some talk of the discovery violation that kind of goes by the wayside and then it becomes you know i don't want this person to testify i don't think she's all fide to testify about the poster of motion here where we say there i'm not sure i know exactly at reference to the post primary i mean there's the ruling at the instruction conference where he talks about she's not an expert that's where expert and i think the record supports that but to me also determine he has this idea that this isn't really something that the jury can't understand so we don't need an expert it's the confusion between rule seven a one in seven o t wo he's confusing a lame witness and an expert witness and what we have an example of why we have sound reason why we have classifications we have to spend because a late witness they have to testify on observations i guess i would respectfully disagree that he's not concerned about her qualifications the first finding he makes after the prosecutor tries to qualify her is i don't have to reach whether she's an expert so i think that's very telling and i think he's listening and he's thinking