Opinion ID: 1175474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Out-of-Court Experiment

Text: During the State's case in chief, Dr. Florey, the State's expert, testified that one could have sexual intercourse with a woman lying on an examination table in the pelvic examination position. On cross-examination later in the trial, the prosecutor asked appellant whether it was physically possible to be sexually assaulted during a pelvic exam. Appellant replied, I would have to agree with Doctor Florey that it would probably be possible. On redirect, appellant explained that intercourse on the table would require cooperation by the victim. The prosecution called Dr. Florey to the stand in rebuttal, and he repeated his prior testimony that sexual intercourse was possible. He did not say specifically whether cooperation would be required. When asked by the prosecutor why he believed it was possible, Dr. Florey answered: Well because    I had always assumed it would be possible and so my wife and I went up to the office and tried it. It is rather, on my table, it is clumsy because I can't  I'm not the right height for my table but it is a possible thing. The prosecutor then asked Dr. Florey whether he had a table similar to appellant's adjustable table, and he responded: No, sir. I would assume it would be much easier on [appellant's table] because then I could adjust for the difference in height between me and [the] table. Defense counsel moved to strike Dr. Florey's testimony on grounds that [i]t is completely and totally unrelated to this case and what the witness did with his wife has absolutely no bearing whatsoever on this particular table, these particular ladies and this particular circumstance. The trial judge overruled the objection, and appellant now claims that the admission of this testimony was reversible error. He reiterates his trial objection that the experiment was irrelevant because the prosecution failed to show that the out-of-court experiment and the alleged sexual assaults occurred under substantially similar circumstances. We need not decide whether the court erred in admitting Dr. Florey's testimony about his experiment because any error was harmless. `Error in admitting evidence which has been presented by or on behalf of one party is cured where practically the same evidence    is elicited on cross-examination [from the objecting party.]' Feeney v. State, Wyo., 714 P.2d 1229, 1230-1231 (1986), quoting 5A C.J.S. Appeal and Error § 1735(b). When Dr. Florey compared the clumsy consensual intercourse on his table with the enhanced possibilities on appellant's adjustable table, he was merely making the point that intercourse was possible on appellant's table, a fact appellant had already admitted. Dr. Florey never implied that non-consensual intercourse was possible on appellant's table. Any error in admitting Dr. Florey's testimony was harmless.