Opinion ID: 2497005
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: whether the trial court erred in denying the defendant's motion to exclude the testimony of dr. donald matherne.

Text: ¶ 22. Anderson filed a motion to exclude the testimony of Dr. Matherne, arguing that his testimony was not supported by Daubert principles. [8] After a hearing, the trial court denied Anderson's motion. ¶ 23. The admission of expert testimony is within the sound discretion of the trial judge. Bishop v. State, 982 So.2d 371, 380 (Miss.2008) (citing Miss. Transp. Comm'n v. McLemore, 863 So.2d 31, 34 (Miss.2003)). This Court will not reverse a trial court's decision to admit expert testimony unless it finds that the trial court's decision was arbitrary and clearly erroneous, amounting to an abuse of discretion. Id. (citations omitted). ¶ 24. Mississippi Rule of Evidence 702 governs the admissibility of expert testimony and states: If 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 an opinion or otherwise, if (1) the testimony is based upon sufficient facts or data, (2) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods, and (3) the witness has applied the principles and methods reliably to the facts of the case. ¶ 25. In McLemore, this Court abandoned the long-accepted Frye standard [9] and adopted a modified Daubert standard, thus explaining how Daubert and Rule 702 [10] should be applied. .... [T]he analytical framework provided by the modified Daubert standard requires the trial court to perform a two-pronged inquiry in determining whether expert testimony is admissible under Rule 702. The modified Daubert rule is not limited to scientific expert testimony  rather, the rule applies equally to all types of expert testimony. First, the court must determine that the expert testimony is relevant  that is, the requirement that the testimony must `assist the trier of fact' means the evidence must be relevant. Next, the trial court must determine whether the proffered testimony is reliable. Depending on the circumstances of the particular case, many factors may be relevant in determining reliability, and the Daubert analysis is a flexible one. Daubert provides an illustrative, but not an exhaustive, list of factors that trial courts may use in assessing the reliability of expert testimony. McLemore, 863 So.2d at 38 (internal citations omitted). ¶ 26. The Daubert factors include: Whether the theory or technique can be and has been tested; whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication; whether, in respect to a particular technique, there is a high known or potential rate of error; and whether the theory or technique enjoys general acceptance within a relevant scientific community. Daubert, 509 U.S. at 593-94, 113 S.Ct. 2786. The applicability of these factors depends on the nature of the issue, the expert's particular expertise, and the subject of the testimony. McLemore, 863 So.2d at 37 (citing Kumho Tire Co., Ltd. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 151, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)). ¶ 27. In today's case, the court conducted a pretrial Daubert hearing to determine the admissibility of Dr. Matherne's testimony. At the hearing, Dr. Matherne described his education, training, and work in the field of clinical psychology. Dr. Matherne testified that he had a Ph.D. degree in clinical psychology, had been in private practice for forty years, and currently mostly did consulting work for referrals from youth court and the government. Dr. Matherne also attended annual seminars and classes on clinical psychology. ¶ 28. Likewise, Dr. Matherne testified regarding his interview with Allison and the methodology he had used to interview her, including the fist demonstration he had used. Dr. Matherne testified that he had used the demonstration for descriptive purposes only and that he did not use it to substantiate an allegation of abuse. The following was Dr. Matherne's description of the demonstration: I refer to it as the fist demonstration. It's not a test. It's simply a way to determine what is the child saying happened. There's no-there's nothing around that gives you this opportunity. Sometimes I'll be asked, well, do you think that we should do a medical examination, and what do you think based upon what the child has said, is there going to be physical evidence. And so having done this for many years, I arrived at a way that the child can best demonstrate this. And what I do is I ask them to take one hand, to imagine that this is their private area, and then to take the other hand and to show me what happened. And what will typically be demonstrated is the child will take the index finger most of the time and they will either touch the exterior or they will insert. ¶ 29. After hearing Dr. Matherne's testimony, the trial judge found that he was qualified as an expert in clinical psychology. While not expressly stating that Dr. Matherne's testimony was relevant  relevance being the first requirement for expert testimony under Rule 702  the trial judge did state: In this case Dr. Matherne's testimony is that he obtained information from various sources including from Allison and that he then rendered his opinions and his diagnosis based on that. It appears at least in this record his testimony is so based upon that. ¶ 30. Additionally, the trial court found that Dr. Matherne's testimony was reliable. The trial court noted Dr. Matherne's experience and extensive training in the field of psychology, including teaching others clinical psychology. The trial court also noted that Dr. Matherne's fist demonstration was not peer-reviewed. However, the trial judge found that, under Daubert and Kumho, peer review was not a requirement for a finding of reliability. See also Poole v. Avara, 908 So.2d 716, 724 (Miss.2005) (Peer review by publication remains only one factor on a non-exhaustive list of factors for admissibility under evidence rules with a liberal thrust. Though helpful when present, publication and peer review are not absolutely required; their absence does not constitute automatic inadmissibility.) ¶ 31. In 2004, the Court of Appeals in Davis v. State found that a trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Matherne to testify regarding the fist demonstration. Davis v. State, 878 So.2d 1020, 1024 (Miss.Ct. App.2004). The Court of Appeals found that the technique was only a form of information gathering. Id. Similar to Davis, the trial court in the present case found that Dr. Matherne's fist demonstration was ... simply a demonstration. We adopt the reasoning of the Court of Appeals as stated in Davis. ¶ 32. A trial court's decision to admit expert testimony should be upheld on appellate review unless this Court finds that the decision was arbitrary and clearly erroneous. Poole, 908 So.2d at 721. Admittedly, Dr. Matherne's fist demonstration does not meet many of the Daubert factors. This Court has held, however, that this does not constitute automatic inadmissibility. Id. at 724. The trial court found that Dr. Matherne's testimony was both relevant and reliable, and that the fist demonstration was simply a technique used to gather information; we agree. The testimony was based on scientific knowledge and would assist the trier of fact in determining or understanding a fact at issue. Considering the flexibility of the Daubert standard and the liberal thrust of our rules of evidence, we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Dr. Matherne's testimony.