Opinion ID: 1728613
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: State's Cross-Examination of Dr. Murphy

Text: The defendant next contends that prejudicial error was committed by the state in the manner in which it used a study to cross-examine Dr. Murphy. On direct examination, Dr. Murphy testified that the tests given the defendant, the results of which showed definite evidence of brain damage, were very reliable and not susceptible to attempts at malingering or faking by the defendant. On cross-examination, the State asked Murphy, over objection, if he was familiar with the Faust, Hart and Gilmecki study conducted in 1987 in which children had been instructed to fake neuropsychological exams and the results were then sent to qualified experts, such as Murphy for evaluation. Dr. Murphy replied that he was not familiar with the study. The State then proceeded to ask Murphy, over objection, if he would be surprised that 93% of the neuropsychologists had found the tests abnormal when, in fact, none of them were. Dr. Murphy then explained the limitations of such studies, but conceded that the professional literature in general indicates that psychological tests are sometimes inaccurate and can be faked. The defendant contends that this line of cross-examination was error because the authoritative nature of the study was not acknowledged by Murphy or established by independent evidence as required by McCay v. Mitchell, 62 Tenn. App. 424, 463 S.W.2d 710, 720 (1970). [6] The State, in response argues that any error was harmless because the jury was instructed that statements, arguments, and remarks of counsel are not evidence and should be disregarded if not supported by the evidence, and because Murphy conceded that although he was not familiar with this particular study, he was aware of other professional literature indicating that psychological tests are sometimes inaccurate and can be faked. We agree. Requiring proof of the authoritative nature of the study has the wholesome effect of not permitting this issue to be determined by mere statements of counsel. Id. Here, Dr. Murphy, although he was not familiar with the specific study used by the State, conceded that there is authoritative literature in his field of expertise which indicates that psychological tests are sometimes inaccurate and can be faked. In this context, we conclude that the failure to establish by independent evidence the authoritative nature of the Faust, Hart and Gilmecki study was harmless error.