The testimony was specifically offered to corroborate the testimony of the child, the jury was instructed to that effect, and the substance of the detective's testimony was generally consistent with the testimony of the child. Appeal by defendant from judgment entered 30 January 1998 by Judge Zoro J. Guice, Jr. in McDowell County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 14 September 1999. Attorney General Michael F. Easley, by Associate Attorney General Curtis O. Massey, II, for the State. The charge of first degree statutory rape was submitted to the jury, which returned a verdict of guilty on 30 January 1998.
Defendant now appeals.
When read together, the Rules of Evidence thus prohibit an expert witness from commenting on the credibility of another witness. On the other side of the coin, however, Rule 702 permits expert witnesses to explain the bases of their opinions. Furthermore, the mental and emotional state of the victim before,during, and after a rape or sexual assault is relevant testimony that can help assist the trier of fact in understanding the basis of that expert's opinion. A survey of our case law illustrates the line between properly explaining the basis of an expert's opinion and improperly commenting on a witness' credibility. The Wise court reasoned that the expert was only describing her observations as to the victim's emotions, not the credibility of the victim herself.