Opinion ID: 2623482
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony concerning Michele Dague's mental state when she was committing her act of child abuse

Text: As the court of appeals pointed out in Dague II, Dr. Krugman was hesitant to testify about what was specifically going on in Dague's mind. [5] He was also hesitant to agree with Dr. Wolf's conclusions having never seen Wolf's reports or records. [6] However, Krugman was willing to answer hypothetical questions regarding Dague. He testified that he would not be surprised to hear Dague was having marriage problems, given that such problems cause stress. He also would not be surprised to hear that Dague was concerned about finances, given that such concerns cause stress. He would not be surprised to hear that Dague was feeling isolated and homesick after her move from Colorado, given that isolation is a cause of stress. He also stated that he would not be surprised to hear that Dague was experiencing an extremely bad headache that day. When asked if he felt this could contribute to the injuries he had witnessed, he answered affirmatively, explaining that pain is a stressful event. Defense counsel also asked Dr. Krugman a series of questions as to whether he agreed with Dr. Wolf's testimony about Dague's mental state at the time. When asked whether he would agree that Dague was so focused on the pain of her headache that she lost sight of what she was doing, he responded, I wouldn't disagree with that. And I'd probably tend to agree with it. When asked if he would agree with a psychiatrist who testified that Dague's actions were a loss of control similar to a reflexive act, he hesitated to agree with the opinion without reading the psychiatrist's report, but stated he wouldn't disagree with it and that it would be consistent with cases that I've seen. After testifying that when people lose control in these situations they are not thinking, Dr. Krugman was asked whether in his opinion Dague's actions involved a loss of control involving an abuser [who] was not thinking about what they were doing. He responded, [a]s I reviewed this case, this seemed to be a case of loss of control that happened that one time. He later stated on cross that [i]n most cases I don't think the abusive adult knows what's happening at that moment.... I don't know specifically what was going on in Ms. Dague's mind at that time. When asked whether Dague knew what she was doing at the time, he responded I can't say, for sure. At this point the superior court judge intervened and inquired whether Krugman could testify as to medical probabilities. Krugman stated that he could not because we can't do those studies. Krugman explained: In my opinion, in talking with the adults who have abused children and in working with my colleagues at the Kemp Center and reviewing many, many cases, it is my opinion based on that clinical expertise, and reading what people have written, that most abusive adults are not cognizant of what they're doing at that time. That doesn't permit me to give an opinion in this specific case because I don't have the information to be able to do that. Krugman added that, though it is more probable than not in cases like this that the abuser was not aware of what was happening, you can't apply profile or population type data to individual cases. It's just hazardous.