Opinion ID: 1742206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Expert Testimony of Doctor

Text: ¶ 46. The defendant also challenges the testimony of the State's child abuse expert, in which Dr. Levitt responds to questions concerning the victim's delay in reporting the abuse and conflicting assertions as to the actual number of instances of abuse. The defendant contends that the witness's testimony was offered for the purpose of assessing the credibility of statements of another witnessthe victim. [15] ¶ 47. A witness may not testify that another competent witness is telling the truth. See State v. Jensen, 147 Wis. 2d 240, 249, 432 N.W.2d 913 (1988); State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 96, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984). However, an expert witness may offer relevant testimony that a victim's behavior is consistent with the behavior of similarly situated victims. See Jensen, 147 Wis. 2d at 256. [16] ¶ 48. The question of whether a witness has improperly testified as to the credibility of another witness is a question of law which we review independently. See State v. Davis, 199 Wis. 2d 513, 519, 545 N.W.2d 244 (Ct. App. 1996). Upon review of the record, we decline to adopt the defendant's characterization of Dr. Levitt's testimony. ¶ 49. The State asked Dr. Levitt whether Jeri's difficulty at school was consistent with behavior of other sexual abuse victims. Dr. Levitt responded in the affirmative. The State then asked if Jeri's failure to report the abuse for a lengthy period of time was consistent with other victims of sexual abuse. Dr. Levitt answered that delayed disclosure would be entirely what's expected in child sexual abuse. The State followed up with the inquiry, Do you have an opinion. . .as to whether this child's delayed reporting of this, given that the accused is a stepfather or father figure would be consistent with the delays that you have observed in other victims? Dr. Levitt responded in general that when a child is abused by a family member. . .there are inherent behavioral directions in. . .not telling, when there is that secrecy. ¶ 50. Finally, the State asked Dr. Levitt whether this child's inability to recount the exact number of times that she had been sexually abused by her stepfather is consistent with. . .that type of behavior which you've noted in your experience. . . . Dr. Levitt replied that whenever child sexual abuse is happening within a child's family. . .the exact number of times becomes very confounded and that is entirely consistent with child sexual abuse accommodations syndrome. [17] ¶ 51. As the testimony highlighted above indicates, this is not a case where an expert testifies that there was no doubt whatsoever that the accuser was a victim of moral turpitude. See Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d at 95. This is also not a case where the expert opined that the victim was being totally truthful with the authorities. See State v. Romero, 147 Wis. 2d 264, 277, 432 N.W.2d 899 (1988). Rather, Dr. Levitt's testimony, viewed in its entirety and in the context of the questions to which it was responsive, merely offered her expert opinion that the facts of Jeri's case are what would be expected of, or what would be consistent with, facts surrounding other victims of childhood sexual abuse. Accordingly, Dr. Levitt did not violate the prohibitions of Haseltine or Jensen and the circuit court properly overruled the defendant's objection and admitted the testimony.