Opinion ID: 884961
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Admissibility for Impeachment of Dr. Cannell

Text: ¶ 31 Benjamin also contends that the prior acts evidence should have been admitted to impeach Dr. John Cannell, who testified that there was no reliable, third party documentation that Benjamin was abused and that as a result, he doubted the scientific validity of Benjamin's claim. Benjamin asked the District Court to allow him to impeach Dr. Cannell with the prior acts evidence in order to rebut Cannell's testimony that there was no third party documentation of the abuse, but the District Court refused to admit the testimony. ¶ 32 A witness is presumed to speak the truth. However, this presumption may be controverted or overcome by any matter that has a tendency to prove or disprove the truthfulness of the witness's testimony, including other evidence which contradicts the witness's testimony. See § 26-1-302(9), MCA. ¶ 33 Dr. Cannell testified that the best evidence supporting a claim of child sexual abuse are contemporaneous medical records of the victim which document the physical effects of the abuse. He further testified that third party documentation is by far the most important information when evaluating the credibility of such a claim. He then testified that in his opinion there was little, if any, scientific validity to Benjamin's claims. ¶ 34 During cross-examination, Benjamin was able to challenge Dr. Cannell about the types of corroborating evidence which would be valuable for assessing the scientific validity of the claim. According to Dr. Cannell, these include third party documentation such as police reports, medical reports and reports from social workers. ¶ 35 Benjamin argued to the District Court that Moran's and Larson's proffered testimony was third party documentation of his claim which provided scientific evidence of abuse. On appeal, he contends that the defendant's propensity to molest children is a factor a psychiatrist would deem important corroborating evidence, and that as a result of the District Court's ruling, he was unable to cross-examine Dr. Cannell about the types of corroborating evidence which might be pertinent, and whether such evidence existed. ¶ 36 However, the prior acts evidence which Benjamin sought to use to attack Dr. Cannell was not the type of evidence which Dr. Cannell said would provide third party documentation of Benjamin's abuse. Evidence tending to establish Torgerson's propensity to molest children is evidence of Torgerson's character, rather than of his actions with respect to Benjamin. It was corroborating evidence of Benjamin's abuse, rather than additional evidence about his abuser, which Dr. Cannell testified Benjamin lacked. Therefore the prior acts evidence would not have tended to impeach Dr. Cannell's testimony and was properly excluded by the District Court when offered for that purpose.