Prior to stating her opinion, Dr. Matteson testified extensively on matters within her field of expertise. The trial judge had also questioned Dr. Matteson on her education and experience before allowing her to answer a line of questioning during direct examination. The foregoing facts indicate that the judge unquestionably accepted Dr. Matteson as an expert. Furthermore, and more importantly, the judge's treatment of Dr. Matteson conveyed to the jury that Dr. Matteson was testifying as an expert. After reviewing the transcript we cannot say that there is a reasonable possibility that a different result would not have been reached if Dr. Matteson had not stated her opinion on the victim's truthfulness.
Defendant is entitled to a new trial.