Opinion ID: 1425788
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: T.'s BEHAVIOR WITH AN ANATOMICALLY CORRECT DOLL

Text: When the CPS caseworker interviewed R.T., she brought along an anatomically correct female doll. R.T.'s behavior with the doll consisted of pointing to the vagina of the doll when she said peepee hole, and again pointing to the vagina of the doll when the caseworker asked her where Bill put his peepee on her. The Court of Appeals held that since there was no expert testimony in this case regarding behavioral characteristics that evince sexual abuse, there was nothing in the record to support the conclusion that R.T.'s behavior with the doll demonstrated unusual sexual awareness or constituted corroboration of abuse. Here again, the question of whether expert testimony was necessary is raised. In Hunt, our Court of Appeals observed that much of the child victim's play with anatomically correct dolls was a combination of `nonassertive verbal and nonverbal conduct'. [34] Testimony regarding such play was thus not hearsay and provided additional corroboration that the child had been abused. [35] In Hunt, the testimony regarding the child's play was unaccompanied by expert testimony. The play consisted of the child undressing a male doll and grabbing its penis, undressing a female doll, and placing the penis of the male doll between the female doll's legs. [36] Testimony regarding play with anatomically correct dolls also was viewed as corroborative without the benefit of expert testimony in State v. Jones, 112 Wn.2d 488, 772 P.2d 496 (1989). In Jones, the play demonstrated the abusive act of urolagnia. [37] In two cases from other jurisdictions, a child victim's play with anatomically correct dolls also was seen as corroborative without the aid of expert testimony. In Murray, the child put the penis of a male doll between the legs of a female doll, in its mouth, and in its rectal area. [38] Another child demonstrated with dolls that her father had touched her genital area in In re Dutchess Cy. Dep't of Social Servs. ex rel. Kerri K., 135 A.D.2d 631, 633, 522 N.Y.S.2d 210 (1987). [6] It thus appears to us that R.T.'s play may be considered on its own merits, without the benefit of expert interpretation. Her play with the female doll was not nearly as explicit as the 2-doll play described in Jones, Hunt, and Murray, but is equivalent to that described in Kerri K. As such, it serves as at least some corroboration of R.T.'s abuse.