i i i i i i



### OPIN ION No
. 04 -0 8- 00 44 7- CR Hec tor CH AV ARRI A , Appellant
v . T h e STA TE of

Te xas, Appellee Fr om the 406th J udicial District Court, Webb County , Texas

Trial Court No. 2007-CRS-358-D4 Honora ble Osca r J. Hale, J r., Judge Pre siding Opinion by : Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Sitt ing: Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice

Rebec ca Simmons, J ustice Marialy n Ba rnar d, J ustice Deliver ed and F iled: November 25, 2009 AFF I RMED Def endant, Hec tor Chavar

ria, wa s convicted of

ag g ravated sexual assault of a c hild and sentenc ed to life imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. On appe al, he a sserts the expert testimony of
a ps y c ho log ist

sp e c ia lizin g in the are a

of c hil d s e xua l a

bu se wa s unr e lia

ble purs ua

nt t o T e xas R

ule of Evidenc e 702 bec ause the expert did not testify about the ra te of e rror of his methodology , and be c a us e his me tho do logy

ha d n ot b e e n s ub mitte d f or pe e r r e vie w. We a ff

ir m.04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

1 ... D r. P i na t est i f

i ed t hat “[ a] d i p l o m at e i s a st at us t hat i s b est o wed on you b y y o ur peers, or t he f i el d t hat y o u’ re i n, f or . . . cont r i but i ons t o t he f i el d, an d i t ’ s bas i cal l y a r ecogn i t i on t hat y ou’ ve gone bey ond t he ordi nar y wor k, i n or der to c o n trib u te to the sc ie n c e o r to the fi e ld o r th e c o m m u n ity tha t yo u ’re se rv ing .”

- 2- B ACKG ROUND Def endant wa s char g ed with the ag g ravated sexual assault of T.E. , a child y oung er tha n fourtee n y ear s of ag e. At trial, seven-y ear -old T.E. t estified she was spending the night at he r fr iend’s apar tment when she a

woke to find de fenda

nt moving her

underw ear

to the side an dlicking he r “middle” pa

rt. Acc ordingto T.E., defe ndant then touche d her middle pa rt with his hands. At trial, Dr. Gr eg orio Pina I I I , a license d psy cholog ist and licensed se x offe nder tre atment provider, te stified for the State. H e testified that a bout a thi rd of his practice involves children who claim sexual abuse and a

nother third of his prac tice involves working with people who a re r efe rre d by the courts for violent off enses or sex offenses. Dr . Pina has diplomates 1 i n f o r e n s i c p s yc h o l o g y, sexual abuse psy cholog y , and police psycholog y ; is “a l i fe f ellow for T he Amer ican Colleg e of F or e ns ic Examin e rs in th e area of c lin ic a l f

or e ns ic ps y c ho logy ” ; and ha s p re se nte d to the state psy cholog y

association on t h e ar ea of child sexual abuse and, on two diff ere nt occa sions, to the Society for Police a

nd Cr i m i n al P s y cholog y

at the assoc iation’s national conf ere nce. I n 1998, Dr. Pina rec eived the “Te am Ex cellenc e Award” by the Children’s Advoc acy Center of Texas for being the “OutstandingMental He alth Worker of the Yea r.” At tr ia l, t he State of

fe re d D r. Pin a a s an e xpe rt in c lin ic a l fo re ns ic ps y c ho logy de a lin g wi th child sexual abuse and a s an expert in sex offender t re at m en t. Defe ndant had no objec tion to Dr. Pina’s qualifications, but di d object to Dr. Pina’s methodology , claiming that it was unre liable. The tr i a l c o urto v e r

r u l e d th e o b j e c t i o nan d

a l l o w e d D r . P i n a t o t e s t i f y.04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

- 3- D I S CUS S I ON Texas Rule of Evidence 702 provides that “[i] f scientific, technica l, or other s p ec i ali zed knowledg e will as s i s t t he trier of fa ct to understand the evidenc e or to de termine a fac t in issue, a witness quali fi ed as an e x pert by knowledg e, skill, ex perie nce, tr aining , or educ ation may testify there to in the form of a

n opinion or otherwise.” T EX . R. E V ID . 702. Under Rule 702, the trial cour t has the re sponsibili ty

of dete rmining whe th e r

p r o f f e r e d s cientific e vidence is sufficiently reliable and
re l evant to assist the jury
. Ru sse au v . S tate , 1 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d 8 7 1 , 8 8 1 ( T e x . C r i m . Ap p . 2 0 0 5 )
. We revie w a t ri al court’s r

uling on the a dmissibi lity of scientific expert testimony for a n abuse of discretion. W

e ath e rre d v . S

tate , 15 S.W .3d 540, 542 (Tex. Crim. App. 2000). In deter mining the admissibi lity of novel scientific evidence pursuant to Rule 702, the trial
c ourt mus t c on sid e r t

he sta nd ard e nunc iate d in

Ke lly v . S tate , 824 S.W .2d 568, 572 (Tex. Crim. App. 1992): “whe ther [the] t estimony will help the trier of fac t understand the e vidence or dete rmine a f act in i ssu e .” “ [T]he tr ia l c ourt ’s fi rs t ta sk is t o d e te rm ine wh e the r t he te sti mony

is s uf fi c ie ntl y re lia ble
and re le va nt t o h e lp t

he jur y in r e a c hin g a c c ur a te re su lts ,” be c a us e “ [u]nreli a

ble
. . . s c ie nti fi c evidenc e si mply will not assist the [ jury ] to understand the evidenc e or a ccur ately deter mine a fa ct in issue.” Id. Thus, pursuant to Ke lly , befor e scientific evidenc e may be admitt ed under Rule 702, the pr op on e nt mus t pe rs ua de the tr ia l c ourt , by c le ar and c onvin c ing e vid e nc e , that the e vid e nc e is reliable and there fore re l ev an t. Id. at 573. Her e, def endant c ontends Dr. Pina’s testimony was unreliable
. To demonstrate reliability , a p ro p onent must satisfy three criter ia: (1) the unde rlying scientific theor

y is v al id; (2) the tec hnique applying the theory is valid; and (3) the te chnique wa s proper ly applied on the oc casion in question. Id. Additionally , the Ke lly Court list ed seve n non-04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

- 4- exclusive factor s a co u rt co u ld consider in dete rmining r eliability : (1) the e x tent to which the
un d e r l yi n g s c i e n t i f

i c th e o r y an d t e c h n i qu e ar e a c c e p t e d

a s v a l i d b y t h e r e l e v an ts c i e n t i f

i c c o m m u n i ty, if such a c om m u n ity

can be asce rtained; (2) the qualifications of the expert testifying; ( 3) the exis tence of literatur e supportingor re jectingthe under lying sc ientific theory and tec hnique; (4) the potential rate of er

ror of the technique ; (5) the availability of other e x perts to test and e valuate the technique; ( 6) the c larity

with which the under lying sc ientific theory and tec hnique ca n be explained to the court; and (7) the experience and ski ll of t he person who applied the technique on the occ asion in question. Id. Howeve r, soon af

ter Ke lly , the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals in Ne nn o v . S tate was fa ced with the i ssue of whether the ex pert testim ony of a specia l ag ent i n the Behaviora l Science Unit of the FB I , who spec ialized in studying the sexual victimiz ation of children and who planne d to testify about the defe ndant’s future dang erousne ss, should be subjec t to the Ke lly fac tors. 970 S.W .2d 549, 560 (Tex. Crim. App. 1998), overruled on other grounds by State v. Terrazas , 4 S.W .3d 720, 727 (T e x. C r i m . Ap p . 1 9 9 9 )
. W h e n f a c e d w i th th i s i s s u e , th e C o urt o f C r i m i n a l Ap p e a ls quic kly
rec og nized that the Ke lly fa c tor s use d to pr ov e re lia bil ity c ou ld “ be c ome c umb e rs ome un de r c e rt a in circ umstances.” State v. Me drano , 1 2 7 S
. W
. 3 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 5 (T ex . C ri m . Ap p . 2 0 0 4 ) ( d i s cu s s i n g Nenno and the Ke lly f

a c to r s )
. T hu s , in Nenno , t he Court stated that a lthough the g ener al principles enunciated in Ke lly apply to nonsc ientific expert testimony , “the specific fac tors outlined . . . ma y or may not apply dependingon the con t ext.” 970 S.W .2d at 560. The Nenno Court expl ained that “[w]hen addre ssing fields of st udy aside from the hard science s, such as the social scienc es or fields that are based primarily upon expe rience and training as opposed to the sc ientific method, Ke lly ’s require ment of reliability applies but with less rigor than to the har d scienc es.” Id. a t 56 1 ( e mph a sis04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

2 ... T he C o urt o f

C rimina l A p p ea l s has e xp l aine d t ha t “hard ” sc i en ce s are t ho se “are as in wh i ch p rec i se meas ur ement , ca l cul at i o n, and p red i cti o n a re g en era l l y po ssi b l e, i nc l ud [ing] m athe m ati cs, p hysi ca l scienc e, ea rth s ci enc e, an d li f e scien ce ,” wh i l e “so f

t ” sc i en ce s “are g en era l l y t ho ug ht t o i nc l ud e suc h fi eld s as ps yc hol ogy , ec onom i cs , pol i t i cal s ci enc e, an t hr op ol ogy , an d s oci ol ogy . ” W eat her r ed , 15 S.W
. 3 d at 54 2 n. 5 (emp hasi s ad d ed ).

- 5- added) . Acc ordingto the Court, although it wa s not at t empting “ to develop a r igid distinction be tw e e n ‘ ha

rd ’ a nd ‘s of t’ sc ie nc e s, 2 or nonscientific testimony ,” it was off eringthree inquiries more appropr iately

tailored to ana ly

ze soft science s where “[t] o speak of th e v al i d i t y o f a ‘ theory ’ or ‘tec hnique’ . . . may

be roughly

acc urate but somewhat misleading .” Id. at 560-61. Thus, “ [w] hen ‘s of t’ sc ie nc e s are a t is su e , th e tr ia l c ourt sh ou ld a sk : ( 1) wh e the r the fi e ld o f e xpe rt ise is a le g iti mate one, (2) whether

the subject matter

of the e x pert’s te stimony

is within t he scope of that field; and (3) whether the expert’s testimony proper ly relies on or ut iliz es t he principles involved in the field.” Id.
a t 56 1; se e als o R us se au v . S tate , 171 S.W .3d 871, 883 (Tex. Crim. App. 2005). “The se questions
are mere ly

an app ropriate ly

tailored tra

nslation of the Ke lly

test to area s outside of hard sc ience .” Nenno , 970 S.W .2d at 561. “[H]ard scienc e methods of va lidation, such as assessing thepotential rate of error or subj ec ting a theory to peer re view , may often be inappropriate for te sting the reliability of fields of expertise outside the har d scienc es.” Id. (e mph a sis a dd e d) . “ Ho we ve r, be c a us e the objective of

both Ke lly

and Nenno wa s to e ns ur e the re lia bil ity of e xpe rt te sti mony

and sc ie nti fi c evidenc e, Nenno ‘[did] not categ orica lly rule out employing [the K e lly ] fact or s in

an a pp ro pr iate
case .’” Medrano , 1 2 7 S
. W
. 3 d at 7 8 5 ( q u o t i n g Nenno , 970 S.W .2d at 561 n. 9). He re, de fenda nt
ar g u e s th a tth i s c a s e i s ana p p r o p r i a t e o n e t o a

p p l y Ke lly ’s fa ctors re lating to “ hard” scienc es. A. Do the Ke lly

factors apply i n this case? Acc ordingto defen dant, Ke lly ’s fa c tor s sh ou ld a pp ly to D r. Pin a ’s te sti mony

be c a us e his methodology

involves more than “

just observation,” a

nd instead “involves starting from a que stion04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

- 6- (has this child bee n sexually abused? ), asse ssing the que stion (proving treatment, looking for signs of abuse ), to ma

king a diag nosis.” And, acc ording to defe ndant, in apply ing those Ke lly

fac tors, Dr. Pin a ’s te sti mony

is unr e lia

ble be c a us e Dr . Pi na

te sti fi e d h e did

no t know

the rate of

e rr or of his techniqu e an dhad not submitted his methodology for pe er r eview. I

n response , the State ar g ues Nenno ’ s l e s s s tr i n g e n ts t an d ar d r e l a t i n g t o th e “ s o f

t ” s c i e n c e s s h o u l d a

p p l y t o D r . P i n a ’ s t e s t i m o n y, and that under Nenno ’s standard, the trial cour t did not abuse its discretion in determiningDr. Pina’s testimony was re liable. At trial, Dr. Pina testified in deta il about the methodology he uses. Ac cordin g to Dr. Pina, he re lies on prac tice guidelines “put out by the Amer ican Pr o fe s s ional Society on the Abuse of Chi ldr e n, ” on e of

wh ic h is c a lle d th e “ Psyc ho log ic a l E va luatio n o f S us pe c te d Se xua l Abu se in Children,” and a

nother of which is called “ Investig ative Interview ing in Cases o f Al l eg ed Sexual Ab us e .” He a lso r eli es on a te xtboo k w ri tte n b y

“ Sa dd oc k a

nd Ka ple r, ” wh ic h h a s “ pr oc e dure s to follow when evaluating children of differ ent age s with specific or diffe rent ba ckg rounds, intellectual levels, and la

ng uag e deve lopment.” He a lso relies on handbooks by the Amer ican Psy cholog ical As so c iatio n, on e of

wh ic h is c a lle d the “ Ha

nd bo ok on Clin ic a l Psyc ho logy ” and ano the r o n f

or e ns ic psy cholog y . Dr. Pina testified that these text s are fo l l o we d by other psycholog ists in t he fie ld of psy cholog y

and “a lso, specifica lly , in the are a of c hild sex ual abuse .” Fur ther, Dr . Pina testified that as of De cemb er 2 0 0 7, he had se en more than 6,320 alleg ed vic tim s o f s e xua l a

bu se , f our- fi ft hs of wh ic h w e re c hil dr e n. He saw T .E . o n s ix dif fe re nt o c c a sio ns , and on those oc casions, he f ollowed protocols and pr ocedur es included in the diff ere nt te x t s and article s upon which he relies. Specif ically , Dr. Pina testified that whe n evaluating a child, he g oes to the wa iti ng ro om, int

ro du c e s h ims e lf

to t he c hil d a nd pa re nts , a nd the n b e g ins ob se rv ingthe c hil d04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

- 7- interac t with the pare nts. After obse rving the relationship betwee n the child and the pare nts in the waiting room, Dr. Pina bring s them into a room and intervie ws the ch i l dwith the pare nts present beca use “c hildren don’t have a history of thing s - of information I require .” Dr . Pina takes a de tailed his tor y of the c hil d, sta

rt ingfr om t

he mot he r’ s p re g na

nc y wi th t he c hil d. Th en, he takes a d ev el o p m en t al h i s t o ry

t o s ee i f t h e c h i l d

re ac h ed al l h i s m i l es t o n es at a n o rm al age . Af t er t ak i n g a de ve lop me nta l his tor

y , Dr
. Pin a take s a de ta ile d me dic a l his tor y of the c hil d. He the n in qu ir e s into the child’s educ ational history and how the child has develope d socially . After taking these de tailed histories, Dr. Pina asks the pare nts about t heir major conce rns. He the n looks at family discipline and whether the par ent is consistent or inconsistent with discipline. Dr. Pina next considers the child’s home l ife: whether the child has been exposed to pornog raphy or ot her sex ual behaviors, whether members of

the family

abuse dr ug s, and whe ther ther e ar e other “fa mily dy sfunctions.” F inally , Dr. Pina looks for the “ma

jor stressors” in the child’s life. Finally , Dr. Pina “pushe s” the pa rent out of the inter

view and pe rfor m s a mental status examination of the child alon e to “ d e te c t d e c e p ti o n , ” “ e xa g g eration,” or “minimiz ing.” In perf orming the mental examination of the child, Dr. Pina g ather s information relating to the c hild’s appea ranc e, demea nor, and hy

g iene. He considers whether the child makes e y e conta ct, the child’s e motional life, and the c hild’s mood. Af te r p e rf or min g the me nta l st a tus e xami natio n, Dr . Pi na g oe s to the ne xt ar e a

of his e xam, which he c alls “sensorium.” D r. Pina asks himself whether the child’s brain is picking up what the child is “seeing , smelling, f ee l i n g, and hearing .” Dr . Pina next considers the child’s memory and wh e the r t he c hil d’ s mem or

y is ac c ur a te . H e c on sid e rs the c hil d’ s inte lli g e nc e and tho ug ht p ro c e sse s. He looks at whe ther the c hild wishes to hur t himself or others. Then, Dr. Pina c onsiders whether the04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

- 8- c hil d h a s “ g oo d in sight a s to wh a t th e pr ob le m is that he ’s br ing ingup , a nd a t th e same ti me w ith th a ti s f un c t i o n a l j u d g m e n t

– w h a t ’ s h i s j u d g m e n t a b o u tth e p r o b l e mth a th e ’ s p r e s e n t i n g ? ” F i n a l l y, Dr. Pina consider s the child’s moral de velopment. Whe n a sk e d w he the r t

he re is o ne te st h e c ou ld use on e ve ry sin g le c hil d w ho c ome s into h is office claiming sexual abuse, Dr. Pina testified the re is not. Dr. Pina e x plained, I may have a child who [i ]s four y ear s old a nd comes from Hondura s an dd oesn’t speak Eng lish. Imay

have a very brig ht child who [speaks] t hre e l an guag es. I may have a child who has not deve loped bec ause of poverty or l ack of opportunity . Imay have a c hil d w ho ha s c ome fr om a ve ry batte re d ba c kg ro un d, and c hil dr e n w ho c ome from exceptional families. And there is just not one way to interview a

nd come up with conclusions, g iven ag es , languag e of de velopment – rather, stag es of development, languag e deve lopment, and other f actor s. So we apply

the scienc e as best as possible to the individu al
. But, there’s e noug h information with classes of people, so you can do your work w ell within indivi duals. In other wor ds, a “r ate of err or” would not be applicable to D r. Pina’s methodology , as there are too many varia bles to consider. In revie wing Dr. Pina’s testimony reg ardinghis methodology , we co nclude Dr . Pina’s methodology is not an appr opriate c ase f or employing the Ke lly

fac tors. Instead, we believe it is the k i n d o f “ s o f t ” s c i e n c e “ b a s e d

p r i m ar i l y u

p o ne x p e r i e n c e an d

tr a i n i n g ” r e f

e r r e d t o b y Nenno , 970 S.W .2d at 561. See R usseau , 1 7 1 S
. W
. 3 d at8 8 3 -8 4 (ap p l yi n g Nenno ’s “ so ft ” sc ie nc e s st and ard in consideringthe re liability of license d psy cholog ist’s testimony that appellant pose d a risk of f uture thr e a t to so c ie ty

); De nn is v . S

tate , 178 S.W .3d 172, 181-82 (Tex
. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2005, p et
. re f’ d ) ( ap p l yi n g Nenno ’s “soft” scienc es standard to c h il d p s y c h o th e r a p ist and social worke r who testified about g ener al cha rac teristics of a c hild victimi zed by sexual assault); J

e ns en v . S

tate , 66 S
. W
. 3 d 5 2 8 , 5 4 2 -4 3 (T ex . Ap p . — Ho u s t o n [ 1 4 thDi s t
. ] 2 0 0 2 , p et
. re f’ d ) ( ap p l yi n g Nenno ’s “ so ft ”
s ci en ce s s t andar d to testimony of child advoc acy

worke r who testified a

bout the difficulty

of04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

3 ... W e n ot e t h at a n u mber of cou r t s of appe al s h av e al s o a ppl i ed Nenno to “so ft sc ie n c e s” in c ivil c a se s. See T a ylo r v. T

ex . D ep ’t o

f P ro t ec t i ve & R eg u l a t o ry S erv s. , 160 S. W
. 3d 641, 649- 51 (T ex . A pp.
— Aus t i n 2005, pe t
. de n i ed) (i n p arent al t erm i nat i o n case, ap p l y i ng Nenno st and ard t o d et erm i ne whet her s o ci al wo rker was quali f i ed t o co nd uct and te stif y in sup p o rt o f c o u rt-o rd e re d ho m e stud y); I n t he I nt
. of A. J. L. , 1 3 6 S .W .3 d 2 9 3 , 2 9 7 -3 0 1 (T e x . A p p .— F o rt W o rth 2 0 0 4 , no p et
. )( i n p arent al t erm i nat i o n case, ap p l y i ng Nenno st andar d t o det er mi ne r el i abi l i t y of t es t i mo ny by l i cen s ed p ro fes sio n a l co u n se lo r) ; I n t h e I n t
. o f G. B. , N o . 0 7 -0 1 -0 2 1 0 -C V , 2 0 0 3 W L 2 2 3 2 7 1 9 1 , *2 -6 ( T e x . A p p .— A m a rillo O c t. 1 0 , 2 0 0 3 , no p et
. ) (not d esi gnat ed f o r p ub l i cat i o n) (i n p arent al t erm i nat i o n case, ap p l y i ng Nenno s t and ard t o de t erm i ne r el i abi l i t y of

t e s t i mo n y by v a r i e t y of w i t n e s s e s i n c l u di n g t h a t of l i c e n s e d c h e mi c a l de pe n de n c y c ou n s e l or , l i cen s ed p rof ess i o nal co unsel o r, and m arri age and f am i l y t herap i st ).

- 9- detec ting se x ual abuse of childre n by mere ly observing the r elationship betwee n the victim and pe rp e tr a tor); He rn an de

z v . S tate , 53 S.W .3d 742, 7 4 4 , 7 5 0
- 5 1 (Tex. App.—Houston [1s t Dist.] 2001, p et
. re f’ d ) ( ap p l yi n g Nenno ’s “soft” scienc es standar d to child a dvocac y worke r who testified a bout “Child Abuse Acc ommodation Sy ndrome” ). 3 We, theref

ore, c onclude the Ke lly fa c tor s do no t a pp ly to D r. Pin a ’s te sti mony

and that Nenno ’ s “ s o f

t ” s c i e n c e s s t an d ar d

s h o u l d a p p l y. B. A pp li c a t io n o f Nenno ’s “soft” sciences standard Pursuant to Nenno , in de termining whether Dr. Pina’s testimony was reliable , the trial cour t should have inquired a

bout the following : (1) whether the field of e x pertise is a le g itimate one, (2) whether the subject matter of t he ex pert’s testimony is within the s cope of that field; and (3) whether the expert’s testimony

proper ly relies on or

utiliz es the princ iples involved in the field. Nenno , 970 S.W .2d at 561. Fir st, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals has recog nized rese arc h conce rningthe behavior al cha

rac teristics of sex ually abused children as a legitimate field of expertise. See Cohn v

. Sta te , 849 S.W. 2d

81 7, 81 8- 19 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 93 ); Du c k e tt v . S tate , 797 S.W .2d 906, 914-17 (T e x. Cr im. Ap p. 19 90 ); Jense n , 66 S.W .3d at 543; Hernande z , 53 S.W .3d at 751. Dr. Pina testified he spec ializes in t he ar ea of child abuse. Second, Dr. Pina’s testimony relating to his examination of T. E. wa s w ith in t

he sc op e of

tha t f ie ld o f e xpe rtise . T hir d, Dr . Pi na te sti fi e d h e re lie s o n te xts
acc epted and used by other psy cholog ists in the field of psy cholog y and in the ar ea of child sexual04
- 08
- 00 44 7- CR

- 10- abuse. H e also testified that on the occa sions he saw T.E., he followed the pr otocols and proc edure s included in those texts. Finally , we note that defe ndant cr iticiz es Dr. Pina for employing, what def endant c alls, a “patc hwork of te chniques.” Howeve r, t his criticism g oes t o the weight, not the admis sibili ty , of Dr. Pina’s testimony
. S

e e Z o n e v . Stat e , 1 18 S.W .3d 776, 777 (Tex. Crim. App. 2003) (holding defe ndant’ s at t ac k o n expert’s use of sc ientifically acc epted method of

“sampling ” we nt to the
we ig ht o f t

he e xpe rt e vid e nc e , no t it s a dmi ssi bil ity ); Aguile ra v . S

tate , No. 04-05-00622- CR, 2007 WL12 05 62 , at *3 (T e x. Ap p. —Sa n Anton io 20 07 , pe t. re f’ d) (e xpla ini ngthat de fe nd ant’ s c ri tic ism that D r. Pin a

(t he same Dr . Pi na

wh o te sti fi e d h e re ) d id n ot use sta nd ard ize d tes ts in ev a luatin g c hil d abuse vic tim went to the weig ht and not the admissibili ty of Dr. Pina’s testimony). We, theref ore, hold the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that Dr. Pina’s testimony was re liable. C ONCL US I ON We overrule defe ndant’s issue on appe al and a ffirm the tria l court’s judg ment.

Sandee B ry an Mar ion, J ustice Pub lis h