Opinion ID: 860905
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: It is.

Text: Id. at 918. This question sought to equate Hall's alleged victim with other children who have been the victims of sexual abuse. The court held: The decision to hold admissible the expert testimony describing [the child/victim's] behavior as common with that of a sexually abused child is within the trial judge's discretion absent an abuse of discretion. Id. at 919 (citations omitted). In the present case, the testimony in question was the doctor's discussing the physical evidence of sexual abuse as well as the child's claims of having been sexually abused. I cannot agree with the majority that reversible error occurred in allowing the doctor to testify that it was his opinion the child was abused. Review of the doctor's response to the question for his opinion as to whether the child was the victim of sexual abuse, reveals that Dr. Marcy responded by discussing the physical characteristics of sexual abuse this child exhibited along with the statements made by this child regarding the alleged abuse. Clearly, Hall allows for expert opinion testimony regarding characteristics/behavior of sexual abuse to be admitted, and the statements of the child are admissible under 803(25). I find no improper opinion testimony. Thus, the only remaining objectionable portion of Dr. Marcy's response then was his reference to the child's credibility and consistency. As to the majority's conclusion that it was improper for the doctor to testify as to his opinion that the child was telling the truth, I agree, but I believe that the error was harmless. The Mississippi Supreme Court found harmless error in a similar expert opinion in Jones v. State, 606 So. 2d 1051, 1057-58 (Miss. 1992). In Jones, the following excerpt was at issue: Q. Have you formed an opinion over the years concerning whether children that come in with this kind of problem tell the truth about what happened to them? BY MR. BROWN: Your Honor, I object to that. BY THE COURT: I'll let her answer that yes or no. A. Children do not fantasize about experiences that they have not encountered. BY MR. BROWN: I object to the answer as being-- BY THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. BROWN: --opposed to the Court's ruling. BY THE COURT: Sustained. BY MR. MITCHELL: I think the Court ruled that you could answer the question in a yes or no answer. A. Would you repeat the question? Q. From your experience of examining children like [M.J.] who have evidence that they have been sexually abused, is your experience that they tell the truth? A. Yes. Q. Did you form an opinion in this particular case as to whether [M.J.] had been sexually abused? A. Physical findings support the history of vaginal manipulation. Jones, 606 So. 2d at 1057. The court held: To the extent that Dr. Hampton's testimony may have been an opinion of [the child victim's] truthfulness, allowing it was error. Id. at 1058. Unlike, the present case, the Jones case went further than an opinion as to that specific child's truthfulness. In Jones, the doctor was also allowed to testify that children in general who have evidence that they were sexually abused generally tell the truth. The court found both opinions (about the specific child victim and also about child victims in general) to be harmless error as the testimony was not particularly potent and it did not affect a substantial right of the defendant. Id. My point may best be illustrated by examining the doctor's response without the reference to the child's veracity: A. Based strictly on the physical evidence I would say almost definitely there has been digital penetration of the anus at least. And just overall the physical evidence, the report that he's given . . . I would say he has almost certainly had anal penetration with the finger or penis more than once and also based more on--you know, based upon the history that he had oral sex on Marshel and Marshel had performed oral sex on him. The majority suggests that the jury gave great deference to Dr. Marcy's opinion because of his qualifications. I find it difficult to imagine that the jury found the few words as to the child's truthfulness of such great import so as to render their verdict tainted or that we are required to reverse Chase's conviction. Clearly, the content of the doctor's testimony as a whole and his presence at trial on behalf of the State could easily be indicative to a jury that he believed the child had been abused and that the child was telling the truth. One thing that cannot be forgotten in evaluating the force of this testimony is that the doctor had already testified regarding the physical evidence as well as what the child had told him regarding the sexual abuse. This particular portion of the doctor's testimony was cumulative at worst. I do not believe the jury was any more informed once the doctor indicated that he based his opinion in part upon the judgment of [the child's] credibility and consistency. The majority maintains that the jury could, and probably did, give substantial weight to Marcy's testimony . . .; however, the jury could just as easily have dismissed the doctor's testimony concerning his belief of the child's claims, for it is within the jury's province to weigh the evidence and make such determinations for itself. While I would not encourage the State to elicit improper opinion testimony, I cannot agree that the specific question and response at issue in this case require reversal. I would affirm. 1. See Goodson v. State, 566 So. 2d 1142 (Miss. 1990); Heingpho-Thichack v. State, 603 So. 2d 363 (Miss. 1992); Hall v. State, 611 So. 2d 915 (Miss. 1992). 2. Rule 803(25) of the Mississippi Rules of Evidence provides: A statement made by a child of tender years describing any act of sexual contact performed with or on the child by another is admissible in evidence if: (a) the court finds, in a hearing conducted outside the presence of the jury that the time, content, and circumstances of the statement provide substantial indicia of reliability; and (b) the child either (1)testifies at the proceedings; or (2) is unavailable as a witness . . . .