Opinion ID: 2068703
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: testimony of medical expert

Text: Michael argues that the judge erroneously exercised his discretion in denying him the opportunity to present expert medical testimony to rebut the inference from the state's medical witness, Dr. O'Brien, that the condition of Laura's hymen was likely the result of some type of vaginal penetration. We agree and therefore reverse this evidentiary ruling. At trial, Dr. O'Brien testified that his examination of Laura indicated a more widely opened hymen than we would possibly expect for a girl of this age. Moreover, he stated that he was unable to do a speculum exam because at that time it was too painful for her . . .. Agreeing with the Assistant District Attorney's characterization of Laura's physical condition as being consistent with that of a child who had had some type of vaginal penetration prior to the date of [the] exam, Doctor O'Brien ultimately concluded that the hymen had been more widely opened than it should have been for a child of her age. On cross-examination, the Doctor testified that while normal activity might account for a slight opening in the hymen, it would not account for the amount that this was open. Moreover, Dr. O'Brien conceded that although he was not a gynecologic expert witness on this type of issuebut had a lot of experience in this regardthat normal physical activity would not account for the hymen to be opened as hers was. We agree with the court of appeals that sec. 972.11, Stats., precludes Michael from introducing evidence going to show past sexual activity as an alternate explanation for Laura's dilated hymen. Nevertheless, by excluding Dr. Roenning's testimony the judge denied Michael an opportunity to rebut Dr. O'Brien's statements regarding the likelihood that an eight-year-old child would have a dilated hymen caused by normal physical activity. The state maintains that Michael was able to elicit similar testimony from Dr. O'Brien on cross-examination and that further testimony would be merely cumulative. We disagree. Having read Dr. O'Brien's testimony, we find no support for the proposition that Laura's physical condition was the result of normal physical activity. In fact, Dr. O'Brien dismissed that very hypothesis and concluded that normal activity would not account for such an opening as hers. Having offered one doctor's conclusion regarding the cause of Laura's condition, the state opened the door for Michael to introduce counter testimony. [9] We agree that it would have been inappropriate to allow Dr. Roenning to testify as to Laura's individual condition. He had neither examined Laura nor studied Dr. O'Brien's report. Nevertheless, given the unique nature of child sexual assault and the role that physical evidence plays in such cases, general information relating to causes of wide hymenal openings would be highly relevant. Accordingly, we conclude that the judge erroneously exercised his discretion in denying Dr. Roenning the opportunity to testify with respect to existing medical evidence regarding the normal dilation of an eight-year-old's hymen. [11]