Opinion ID: 509071
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony Concerning Anatomically Correct Dolls

Text: 28 The appellant contends that the district court erred in admitting testimony of Mary Lou Conner, the child's therapist, without qualifying it as reliable under Frye v. United States, 293 F. 1013 (D.C.Cir.1923). The therapist testified that, in her opinion, the child's behavior with anatomically correct dolls showed she had been abused by a man using his penis and not by a woman. Conner's testimony was offered by the government to rebut the defense's theory that Anderson rather than the appellant abused the child. The appellant argues that the scientific reliability of the use of anatomically correct dolls to diagnose sexually molested children should have been established in accordance with the Frye test in order to qualify Dr. Conner's testimony. The appellant's argument has merit. 29 The Frye test requires that when expert opinion based on a scientific principle or discovery is proffered, the thing from which the deduction is made must be sufficiently established to have gained general acceptance in the particular field in which it belongs. Frye, 293 F. at 1014. Evidence that does not qualify under Frye must be excluded because, [t]he prejudicial effect of an aura of scientific respectability outweigh[s] the slight probative value of the evidence. United States v. Solomon, 753 F.2d 1522, 1526 (9th Cir.1985). 30 The trial court has wide discretion in determining whether particular scientific tests are reliable enough to permit expert testimony based upon their results. Gwaltney, 790 F.2d at 1382. The trial court's decision will be upheld unless manifestly erroneous. Id. However, the proponent of scientific evidence that has yet to gain general judicial recognition has the burden of laying a proper foundation showing the underlying scientific basis and reliability of the expert's testimony. Id. (citations omitted). 31 We apply the Frye test to expert opinion testimony that is based on a novel scientific technique. See, e.g., Solomon, 753 F.2d at 1526 (evidence based on the novel scientific technique of narco-analysis is admissible if it is generally accepted as a reliable technique among the scientific community); Gwaltney, 790 F.2d at 1381-82 (Frye test applied to expert opinion testimony based on the existence of antigens in semen and the fact that such antigens occur in only 5% of the population). 32 We have not previously ruled on the specific question of whether expert opinion testimony based on play therapy with anatomically correct dolls is subject to the Frye test. However, we find persuasive the reasoning of In re Amber B., 191 Cal.App.3d 682, 236 Cal.Rptr. 623 (1987), that expert opinion testimony based on play therapy with anatomically correct dolls must qualify under the Frye test because the trier of fact would tend to ascribe a high degree of certainty to the technique. See also In re Christine C., 191 Cal.App.3d 676, 236 Cal.Rptr. 630 (1987) (trial court erred by admitting expert opinion testimony based on child's behavior with anatomically correct dolls). 33 The court's ruling during the course of the trial that Conner's testimony was admissible as non-scientific expert opinion, which did not need to qualify under the Frye test, 3 was manifestly erroneous. The testimony concerning anatomically correct dolls was crucial because it directly rebutted the defense's theory that Anderson rather than the appellant might have abused the child. The testimony was made before the jury by a witness who stated that she was an expert by virtue of both her academic credentials and her clinical experience. Therefore, lack of evidence as to the scientific reliability of this technique was not harmless error. 4 34