Opinion ID: 2594069
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Element of the Crime

Text: [¶41] Next, Mr. Sanchez challenges Dr. Sirotnak's testimony because he used the phrase child abuse throughout his testimony. He claims that whether child abuse occurred was a legal conclusion which should be left for the jury to decide. Mr. Sanchez claims that there is no way a doctor can tell if this was child abuse or not and, therefore, Dr. Sirotnak should not have been allowed to give his opinion. Mr. Sanchez did not object to this aspect of the testimony at trial. We review evidence to which the defense does not object [to] at trial using the three-part test of the plain error standard. First, the record must be clear as to the incident which is alleged as error. Next, the party claiming error must demonstrate that a clear and unequivocal rule of law was violated. Finally, it must be proved that a substantial right has been denied, resulting in material prejudice. Unless admission of the evidence achieves the status of plain error, reversal is not warranted. Trujillo v. State, 953 P.2d 1182, 1186 (Wyo. 1998). [¶42] We first note that [t]estimony in the form of an opinion or inference otherwise admissible is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. W.R.E. 704. We have held that the jury can reject testimony that speaks directly to ultimate issues, and there is no reason to think that testimony of this sort is especially likely to overwhelm a jury or persuade it to give up its independence. Concerns that a jury would give up its responsibility to look critically at testimony and just take the word of the witness are overstated since juries have the power and authority to reject even decisive and informed testimony, and are told as much before they retire to deliberate. Hannon v. State, 2004 WY 8, ¶ 87, 84 P.3d 320, 353 (Wyo. 2004) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted). [¶43] Prejudice does not automatically occur when a term or phrase is used in a question or argument that may have a meaning other than its legal meaning. Armstrong v. State, 826 P.2d 1106, 1113 (Wyo. 1992). When a term or phrase is not used in its strict legal sense, it may be allowed. Id. Dr. Sirotnak was qualified as a child abuse expert by the trial court. As demonstrated by the following testimony, Dr. Sirotnak used the phrase child abuse to explain JZ's medical diagnosis. The following excerpts from his testimony illustrate how he used the phrase: [PROSECUTION] . . . Do you have any background or experience in diagnosing or treating victims of child abuse? [DR. SIROTNAK] Yes. That's the majority of my clinical work at the hospital.    [PROSECUTION] What . . . items do you use to rely on to determine whether a person is a victim of child abuse or not? [DR. SIROTNAK] Well, in addition to, just like any medical diagnosis, sexual abuse, sexual assault, rape, physical abuse, physical assault, those are all medical diagnoses as well. So we start with the history. Why are you here today, or why are you referred to us to talk with you to help you. And the physical exam; referring records; records, again, if a child is being admitted may have hospital transfer records; radiology studies frequently have been done; laboratory studies may have been done; and other medical provider's notes of medial care that has already occurred sometimes when they're coming into our institution.    [PROSECUTION] ... After reviewing all of this ... were you satisfied that [JZ] did not die of natural causes? [DR. SIROTNAK] It's clear that this was not a natural death. [PROSECUTION] Okay. By that, what do you mean? [DR. SIROTNAK] This is a death that occurred in a non[-]accidental  as a result of trauma to his head and very clearly in a non[-]accidental manner.    [PROSECUTION] And based on your review of all of the medical records, relying on your extensive training and experience in the field of child abuse and also in pediatric medicine, did you make a medical diagnosis regarding the cause of death for [JZ]? [DR. SIROTNAK] Yes. [PROSECUTION] And what was that? [DR. SIROTNAK] This is a case of child abuse. It's a case of fatal, physical abuse of [a] child. [PROSECUTION] Now, Doctor, all the opinions that you have rendered today, are they based on your education, training, and experience in the field of pediatric medicine and child abuse? [DR. SIROTNAK] Yes. [PROSECUTION] And are they generally accepted in the medical community? [DR. SIROTNAK] In terms of how to make a diagnosis? ... Yes. [¶44] In contrast, child abuse, in its legal sense is made up of the following elements: (i) The actor is an adult or is at least six (6) years older than the victim; and (ii) The actor intentionally or recklessly inflicts upon a child under the age of sixteen (16) years: (A) Physical injury as defined in W.S. 14-3-202(a)(ii)(B); or (B) Mental injury as defined in W.S. 14-3-202(a)(ii)(A). Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 6-2-503(a) (LexisNexis 2005). The jury's role was to determine whether those elements were met. While the phrase child abuse has a legal meaning, it also has meaning in the medical context. Against that backdrop, we find no error in the expert's use of the phrase child abuse.