Opinion ID: 1745528
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: PEOPLE v BADOUR

Text: Defendant's conviction arises out of an incident involving her six-year-old daughter. Defendant was convicted of first-degree criminal sexual conduct on an aiding and abetting theory and sentenced to thirty to sixty years. The victim accused her mother of holding down her arms and legs and forcing her to perform fellatio on defendant's live-in boyfriend, Roy Erving. The incident came to the attention of the authorities when the victim was locked out of her home during January, 1985. It was at this time that she was placed in foster care. Initially, only Roy Erving was accused and it was not until June, 1985, that the victim raised allegations against her mother. This occurred when the victim began counseling at Lutheran Child and Family Services, during a group session called Daughters United. [8] Thereafter, the psychologist to whom the victim made the allegations contacted a counselor at the Department of Social Services. The defendant has generally denied the allegations raised against her. In November, 1984, she moved out of the house that she and Roy shared for six years. Thereafter, defendant had ceased to have any type of relationship with Roy and argued that therefore there would be no reason for her to allow him to perform sexual acts on her daughter. The prosecution's first witness was Lynn Butterfield, a psychologist employed by Lutheran Child and Family Services. The trial court certified Ms. Butterfield as an expert over defendant's objection. On direct examination, Ms. Butterfield gave testimony relating to sexually abused children generally, as well as an opinion relating specifically to observable behavior of the complainant. [9] On cross-examination defense counsel tried to elicit testimony that would suggest that the symptoms that the victim was experiencing were the direct result of being placed in foster care. Further, that she was lying in an attempt to get back at her mother and Roy for breaking up. In response, Ms. Butterfield testified that placing a child into a new setting could produce feelings of fear, lack of trust, and anxiety. As to the question about whether or not the victim was lying, Ms. Butterfield stated that such a conclusion could not be eliminated. On redirect examination the prosecutor brought out testimony as to whether or not children had the ability to invent sexual acts. In response Ms. Butterfield testified generally that children basically have no knowledge of sexual acts and therefore there is no way a child could invent a specific sexual act without experiencing it. However, she qualified the answer, stating that much of what a child knows or is able to relate concerning sexual acts depends on the child. The prosecution called a second expert, Dr. Shinedling, over defendant's objection. [10] The trial court limited Dr. Shinedling's testimony to the behavior patterns of children who were sexually abused. However, the court prohibited syndrome type [11] testimony and any expert opinion as to whether or not the victim had been sexually assaulted. Dr. Shinedling testified as to the type of test that he generally gives children to determine their developmental level. Dr. Shinedling also testified as to what expectations a person could have when dealing with a child and their precision as to dates and sequences of events. Specifically Dr. Shinedling stated that children are very imprecise and have a hard time conceptualizing days, weeks, or months. Consistent with Ms. Butterfield's testimony, Dr. Shinedling testified that a child who had not experienced a sexual act typically could not fabricate the story. He qualified the statement by suggesting that the ability to fabricate would depend on the age of the child. However, sexually inexperienced children would tend to view a sexual act as something other than what it actually was. Concerning a sexually abused child's disclosure patterns, he stated that it was rare for a sexually abused child to volunteer any information. Thereafter, Dr. Shinedling testified regarding the tests he had specifically given the victim. The only conclusion that Dr. Shinedling drew, in terms of an opinion, were about the victim's intelligence level. He suggested that the victim was borderline dull to normal range of intelligence.