Opinion ID: 2524947
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Background of child sexual abuse profile evidence

Text: In child sexual abuse cases, there is usually little corroborating physical evidence of the alleged abuse; the child may not report the abuse until several years have passed and the matter often comes down to the alleged victim's word against the word of the alleged abuser. [27] The profile of a sexually abused child was first proposed by Dr. Roland Summit in 1983 as Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS). [28] The CSAAS model was designed to aid in treatment of children already known to have been abused, not to diagnose abuse. [29] Thus profile testimony is not to be used to prove that abuse has occurred. [30] On the other hand, evidence of post-traumatic stress disorder may be presented. [31] There are generally four categories of expert testimony that might be presented in these cases: (1) an explanation of typical behaviors or symptoms of known sexually abused children that are apparently inconsistent with abuse, such as delayed or inconsistent reporting, to rebut claims that those behaviors show no abuse occurred; (2) an explanation that some behaviors are commonly observed in sexually abused children and that the child in the case fits those behaviors; (3) expert opinion that the child has been abused based on the expert's evaluation; and (4) expert opinion, based on his or her evaluation, that the child has been abused and that the allegations of abuse are therefore truthful. [32] For purposes of discussion, we label these categories of testimony respectively as (1) rehabilitative or rebuttal testimony; (2) profile or syndrome testimony; (3) ultimate issue testimony (under Alaska Evidence Rule 704); and (4) vouching testimony. Whether Dr. Fleisher's testimony was proper boils down to when expert testimony on an ultimate issue becomes improper vouching testimony.