Opinion ID: 1907479
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Vansickle's letter states:

Text: As we discussed, I have reviewed Dr. Stewart Waddell's records involving [J.M.], and I am concerned that you did not have access to these records prior to Mr. Jason Layton's trial. These records indicate a psychiatric history that clearly predates the event for which Mr. Jason Layton was tried. Dr. Stewart Waddell's records indicate that [J.M.] had some clear symptoms of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder from kindergarten on, and behavioral problems that have occurred from kindergarten on. These clearly predate the event for which Mr. Layton was tried. Dr. Waddell's original evaluation of [J.M.] occurred on October 24, 2002, several months prior to this event. He found at that time that she also had major depressive disorder, severe and recurrent, given her suicidal remarks secondary to the parents' divorce. He called it adjustment disorder at the time, but in a later note reported it as major depressive disorder, severe and recurrent, secondary to the suicidal remarks she had made prior to the event for which Mr. Jason Layton was tried. This child was diagnosed with obsessive-compulsive disorder, which is fairly severe given the condition of her hands in his first report; they were quite chapped, and the obsessive-compulsive handwashing was a noticeable problem. He also reported on his initial exam that she was historically found to have some slightly slow developmental features, but her motor and speech skills had normalized. This information would clearly have made a difference in the credibility of this child as a witness. The fact that there is also some paranoia involved in a couple of her exams prior to March of 2003 would indicate a serious credibility problem with this child as a witness. It would certainly be in order to request accommodation by the court, or that the court reopen this situation given the new information presented to you. Dr. Vansickle does not explain why a child with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, depression, obsessive-compulsive disorder, slightly slow developmental features, and some paranoia might be prone to lying, either in her testimony or in her initial report of the incident. She also fails to cite any scientific research, testing, or any other studies that indicate a child with these problems would fabricate such allegations as those involved here or that such a child might falsely perceive this type of abuse. Without any scientific support, her letter is nothing more than a mere assertion of her belief. In Slay v. Keller Industries, Inc., 823 So.2d 623, 626 (Ala.2001), we stated: `[A] person who offers an opinion as a scientific expert must prove that he relied on scientific principles, methods, or procedures that have gained general acceptance in the field in which the expert is testifying.' We also stated in Slay that [m]ere assertions of belief, without any supporting research, testing, or experiments, cannot qualify as proper expert scientific testimony under either the `general-acceptance' standard enunciated in Frye [ v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923),] or the `scientifically reliable' standard of Daubert [ v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (1993)]. 823 So.2d at 626. Dr. Vansickle's letter fails to comply with either the standard enumerated in Frye or the standard enumerated in Daubert. Additionally, Layton does not demonstrate that Dr. Vansickle is qualified to testify as to whether J.M. may have fabricated the allegations against him, or whether J.M. might have had problems correctly perceiving what allegedly occurred on the night in question. Although Layton states in his brief that Dr. Vansickle is a psychiatrist, our search of the record does not reveal any other qualifications that might be relevant. Cf. Inmon v. State, 585 So.2d 261, 267 (Ala.Crim.App. 1991) (holding that the trial court did not err in admitting, for purposes of proving the truth of a child's sexual-abuse allegations, the testimony of a psychiatrist who  had been practicing adolescent psychiatry for 16 years, had worked with 400-500 sexually abused children, and had become `familiar with the patterns and symptoms of a child who has been sexually abused' ). The trial court would have been within its discretion in ruling that Dr. Vansickle's letter was inadmissible. See Central Aviation Co. v. Perkinson, 269 Ala. 197, 203, 112 So.2d 326, 331 (1959) ([A]n expert may not testify to his opinion on matters outside of his field of training and experience.). We cannot conclude that Dr. Vansickle's letter would have probably changed the result at trial. See generally Houston, supra . Therefore, Layton is not due a new trial based on Dr. Vansickle's letter.