Opinion ID: 2526957
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: motion to exclude proposed expert testimony

Text: ¶ 34 Gallegos argues that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of Dr. Peter Byrne, who should have been permitted to testify that based upon the psychosexual testing he administered, it was his expert opinion that [the defendant] was not a `pedophile' and not attracted to children. Moreover, Gallegos contends that Dr. Byrne's testimony was relevant under rule 401 of the Utah Rules of Evidence to establish a pertinent character trait, that is, that Gallegos was not a pedophile. The State, on the other hand, argues that whether Gallegos is a pedophile is simply not proper character evidence as contemplated by rule 404(a)(1). More importantly, because the penile plethysmograph (PPG) that formed the basis of Dr. Byrne's testimony was invalid, the State contends that the test is also irrelevant under rule 401. [6] ¶ 35 Under the Utah Rules of Evidence, expert testimony is admissible if specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact . . . to determine a fact in issue. Utah R. Evid. 702. By attempting to introduce Dr. Byrne as an expert witness in this case, Gallegos sought to demonstrate to the jury that he was not a pedophile, but was instead sexually attracted to age-appropriate females. Specifically, Gallegos sought to introduce the results of a PPG administered by Dr. Byrne as character evidence of his purported non-pedophilia under rule 404(a)(1). ¶ 36 Rule 404(a)(1) states that the accused may introduce pertinent character trait evidence. Pertinent has been held to mean relevant. Cf. United States v. Staggs, 553 F.2d 1073, 1075 (7th Cir.1977). See also Utah R. Evid. 404(a)(1). ¶ 37 This court held in State v. Miller, 709 P.2d 350 (Utah 1985), that psychological expert testimony regarding sexual offenders who abuse children is relevant evidence: Rule 404(a), Utah R. Evid., specifically permits an accused to offer evidence of a pertinent trait of his character, for the purpose of proving that he acted in conformity therewith on a particular occasion. The [expert] testimony . . ., in conjunction with the proffered testimony from the appellant, would have been relevant to a pertinent trait of his character, namely, the incongruity of his personality traits with those of individuals capable of and likely to commit sexual offenses against children. Id. at 353. ¶ 38 Under the Miller rule, we hold that the trial court erred in determining that the proffered expert testimony was irrelevant. Nevertheless, we further hold that the error was harmless. As discussed in detail above, the evidence that all the elements of enticement were in fact committed was virtually uncontroverted. Evidence of the defendant's lack of sexual interest in children would not likely have addressed any of the actual acts he undertook, which were entirely sufficient to sustain the conviction notwithstanding his intent in undertaking them.