### RECORD IMPOUNDED

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEY APPELLATE DIVISION DOCKET NO . A

- 1678

- 16T3 STATE OF NEW JERSEY, Plai ntiff

- Respondent,

v. V.E., Defendant

- Appellant.

________________________

Submitted August 1, 2018

– Decided August 8, 2018 Remanded by Supreme Court September 22, 2020 Resubmitted November 4, 2020

– Decided Before Judges Hoffman and Currier. On appeal from the Superior Court of New Jersey, Law Division, Passaic County, Indictment No. 11

- 07

- 0653. Harkavy, Goldman, Goldman & Gerstein, attorneys for appellant (Martin S. Goldman, on the brief). Camelia M. Valdes, Passaic County Prosecutor, attorney for respondent ( Christopher W. Hsieh, Chief Assistant Prosecutor, of counsel and on the brief). PER CURIAM NOT FOR PUBLICATION WITHOUT THE APPROVAL OF THE APPELLATE DIVISION This opinion shall not "constitute precedent or be binding upon any court

. " A lthough it is posted on the internet , this opinion is binding only on the parties in the case and its use in other cases is limited

. R

. 1:36

- 3.

November 24 , 20202 A

- 1678

- 16T3

In July 2018, our Supreme Court held that CSAAS 1 evidence was no longer admissible to any extent as it lacked "a sufficiently reliable basis in

sc ience to be th e subject of expert testimony." S tate v. J.L.G. , 234 N.J. 265, 272 (2018). Two years later, on August 5, 2020, the Court gave its decision i n J

. L

. G

. pipeline retroactivity

– deeming its determination applicable to any cases on direct appeal at the time of its ruling. State v. G.E.P. , 243 N.J. 362, 386

- 89 (2020). We issued our decision in this case o ne week after the J

. L

. G

. ruling

. We acknowledged the J

. L

. G

. decision but concluded the CSAAS testimony presented in this case was "harmless in light of the overwhelming proof of defendant's guilt." State v. V.E. , No. A

- 1678

- 16 (App. Div. Aug

. 8, 2018) ( slip op. at 2 n.2 )

. On September 22, 2020, the Su pr eme Court granted defend an t's petiti o n for certification and summarily remanded to this c o urt to "reconsider in light of State v. G

. E

. P ." State v. V.E. , __ N.J. __ (2020)

. In our reconsideration, t he

1 Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome "includes five 'preconditions' that purportedly explain behaviors exhibited by sexually abused children." State v. G.E.P. , 243 N.J. 362, 369 (2020) (citing State v. J.Q. , 130 N.J. 554, 568

- 70 (1993) )

.3 A

- 1678

- 16T3

C ourt instructed us to "reevaluate the conclusion in footnote 2, concerning harmless error, which p re d ates State v. G

. E

. P ." Ibid. After reviewing the evidence presented during V.E.'s trial and governed by the principles of law adopted in J

. L

. G

. and G

. E

. P

. , we conclude the adm ission of CSAAS testimony "was sufficient to raise a r ea s on ab le d o u bt as to whether the e rror led t he jury to a result it otherwise might not have reached. " State v . Jordan , 147 N.J. 409, 422 (1997) (quoting State v. Macon , 57 N.J. 325, 336 (1971 ) )

. We therefore vacate V.E.'s convictions and remand for a new trial. We rely on the facts as presented in our prior decision. V.E. , slip op. at 1

- 3. The State produced the three minor victims and the children's mother and grandmother as witnesses

. Neithe r the mother nor the grandmother had witnessed the alleged sexual abuse. The State also produced the video

- recorded statements of the victims. Defendant testified o n his own behalf, denying the charged conduct. Pertinent here, t he State also produced Dr. Brett Biller, the training director at the Child Abuse and Maltreatment Center at St. Peter's University Hospital, who testified as an expert on CSAAS. There was no objection to Dr. Biller's testimony and defense counsel did not cross

- examine the expert on any aspect of it.4 A

- 1678

- 16T3

On appeal, defendant argued, in addition to other assertions , that CSAAS testimony should not be admitted in any capacity during a criminal trial

. We concluded it was not an abuse of discretion to allow the testimony b ecause Dr. Biller testified in accordance with the nar ro w parameter s e s tab l ished in State v. J.R

. , 227 N.J. 393 (2017), and such l i m ited testimony was still permitted at the time of defe n d an t's trial

. We affirmed defendant's conviction and sentence. V.E. , slip op. a t 3. Today, however, w e reconsider our determination on this issue and conclude that the Court's decision in G

. E

. P

. , and its consolidated cases, compels a reversal of defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial. Here, there w a s no testimony other th an the m i nor victims, the videos of the v ictim's testim on y with inve s tigators , and the children's mother and grandmother who did not witness the alleged abuse. During her summation, the prosecutor referred to Dr. Biller's testimony on multiple occasions. In the jury's eyes, therefore, the CSAAS testimony could have bolstered the victims' testimonial evidence. As t here was no objection at trial, we review for pl ain error. W e are satisfied that the admission of the CSAAS testimony, now invalidated as unreliable, was "clearly capable of producing an unjust result. " R. 2:10

- 2.5 A

- 1678

- 16T3

Without any other corroboration for the victims' allegations, the admission of the now

- barred CSAAS testimony was an error "sufficient to raise a reasona b le doubt a s to whether the e rror led the jury to a r e su l t it otherwise m ight have not reached. " Jordan , 147 N.J. at 422. We vacate defendant's convictions only for the reason s sta t e d abov e and in accordance with the instructions of the Court in its remand order. The remainder of def

e n dan t's a s serti o ns on the original appeal are without merit, as discussed in our first decision. Vacated and reversed in part. Remanded for a new trial in accordance with this opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction.