Opinion ID: 1944992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Qualification of Witness to Testify as an Expert

Text: By the time Lopez-Navor testified at trial, in the spring of 2004, she was living, with the help of the Mexican Consulate in Massachusetts, at the Women's Center of Rhode Island, a shelter for victims of domestic violence. [15] At trial, respondent called Donna DeLeon, a full-time residential advocate employed by the shelter, to testify. Ms. DeLeon came to know Lopez-Navor because she had performed her intake on the first day Lopez-Navor came to live at the shelter, and she led a group session every Wednesday that Lopez-Navor attended. Ms. DeLeon testified that she had been a paid staff member at the Center for twelve years, after having volunteered as a Spanish interpreter. She had an associate's degree in social science from the Community College of Rhode Island. Over the last twelve years, she said she had gained experience both by attending many training programs in domestic violence and by experience through her work with victims. When counsel for respondent asked Ms. DeLeon to explain whether Lopez-Navor's demeanor and behavior was characteristic of a domestic-violence victim, the Family Court sustained an objection by the guardian ad litem, ruling that Ms. DeLeon would be permitted to testify only to what she observed. The guardian ad litem objected again, shortly thereafter, when respondent's counsel asked the witness if she had an opinion about whether Lopez-Navor was the victim of domestic violence. The court again sustained the objection, refusing to qualify Ms. DeLeon as an expert. The respondent argues on appeal that Ms. DeLeon had sufficient training and experience upon which to base an opinion and that the trial justice erred by refusing to accept her as an expert witness. We consistently have held that [t]he question of whether a witness is qualified to express an expert opinion is a matter that is committed to the sound discretion of the trial justice, and this Court will not disturb the exercise of that discretion absent a showing of abuse. In re Victoria L., 950 A.2d at 1176 (quoting Narragansett Electric Co. v. Carbone, 898 A.2d 87, 95 (R.I.2006)). Rule 702 of the Rhode Island Rules of Evidence provides that [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of fact or opinion. The disjunctive conjunction [in Rule 702], which we must assume the drafters of the rule chose deliberately, suggests that an expert may be qualified on any of the five bases listed. Lavespere v. Niagara Machine & Tool Works, Inc., 910 F.2d 167, 176 (5th Cir.1990) (interpreting Federal Rule of Evidence 702), overruled on other grounds, Little v. Liquid Air Corp., 37 F.3d 1069, 1075-76 (5th Cir. 1994). Furthermore, a proffered expert's qualifications need not be exceptionally remarkable. See State v. Arroyo, 844 A.2d 163, 168 (R.I.2004) (somewhat limited qualifications adequate); New England Telephone and Telegraph Co. v. Clark, 624 A.2d 298, 303 (R.I.1993) (qualifications need not be superlative or extraordinary). Rhode Island law and practice concerning expert testimony makes helpfulness to the trier of fact the crucial issue. Rule 702, Advisory Committee's Note. We cannot say that the trial justice, an experienced Family Court justice, abused his discretion in determining that Ms. DeLeon's opinion testimony would not be of assistance to him as the trier of fact. The testimony elicited at trial provided only a brief sketch of her credentials and experience. The record does not reveal what type of social science degree she attained, in which area of study she concentrated, or whether any of her courses related to domestic violence. Nor is it clear from the record whether Ms. DeLeon has any degree, training or experience in psychology, psychiatry or counseling. Although a degree in these specialties is not necessarily required to express an expert opinion about domestic-violence victims, Ms. DeLeon did not testify to the nature of her training courses, nor did she elaborate on the nature of her experience or her specific employment duties. Further, she testified she had never been qualified as an expert witness before. In these circumstances, we cannot say that the trial justice erred in declining to qualify her as an expert witness.