Opinion ID: 2524947
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Probability testimony

Text: Tabitha argues that Dr. Fleisher's testimony that it was probable that Tabitha had been sexually abused is not improper comment on veracity even though it does tend to corroborate Tabitha's testimony. She also argues that Lance waived any claim of error to Dr. Fleisher's testimony regarding her opinion as to the probability that Tabitha had been sexually abused because he opened the door on cross-examination and then emphasized it in his closing argument. The challenged testimony is as follows: Cross-Examination of Dr. Fleisher: Q: So it makes it very difficult, don't you agree, for anyone to know the truth of what actually occurred in this case, under the circumstances as you know them? A: I'm not sure ifare you asking if it's difficult to know the details of what happened? Q: For the truth of whether or not [Lance H.] actually sexually abused [Tabitha S.]? A: It is difficult, yes. Q: ... [Tabitha S.] is mistaken in her belief that she was abused by [Lance H.]? A: Is it possible? Was your question, is it possible? Q: Yes, let me restate the question so it's clear. Is it possible that [Tabitha S.] is mistaken in her belief that she was abused by [Lance H.]? A: Yes, it is possible. Redirect Examination Q: Doctor, you've just testified that it's possible, but is it likely? A: No, it's not probable. Like I said, anything is possible. And what you look for, again, is a cluster of symptoms. When you say, is it possible that the depression was created by something else? Yes, it's possible. Is it possible that the anxiety was created by something else? Yes, it's possible. That's why we don't look at just one symptom or one trait. We look at the entire personality structure. And if you look at her entire personality structure, it fits very closely to a victim of severe and prolonged sexual abuse. Q: Okay. A: So it's possible that she doesn't remember the details or has remembered some and not others, but is it probable that she was not sexually abused? I don't think so. I think it's probable that she was severely sexually abused. Recross-Examination Q: My question was, can the psychological sciences determine who caused the sexual abuse ... A: No. Q: ... in a sexual abuse victim? A: No. Lance objected specifically to the redirect questioning by Tabitha's attorney. But the court overruled the objection. Dr. Fleisher's testimony does not constitute impermissible vouching because her opinion, which was based on her direct observations, review of existing reports, analysis of the numerous psychological tests she gave Tabitha, and her own clinical interview of Tabitha, did not directly comment on the veracity of Tabitha's allegations. She conceded that it was possible that Tabitha was mistaken about the alleged abuse by Lance, and that it was possible that Tabitha's symptoms had other causes. But it was her opinion that Tabitha fit the profile of one who has been severely abused and that it was probable that such abuse had occurred. Dr. Fleisher did not state that she thought Tabitha was telling the truth, or that her opinion was based on Tabitha's statements. Her opinion was based on facts and data reasonably relied on by experts in her field and could reasonably be construed to assist the trier of fact, especially where opposing expert testimony is also offered, as it was in this case. Most importantly, Lance had full opportunity for cross-examination, re-cross, and impeachment. And it was during cross-examination that Lance's attorney asked whether it was possible that Tabitha was mistaken about the alleged abuse. The province of the jury to determine credibility was not invaded. Dr. Fleisher's expert opinion testimony as to the probability that Tabitha had been abused meets the requirements of the evidence rules, does not constitute improper vouching, and is the kind of testimony allowed under Broderick. [52] Dr. Fleisher's testimony may have embraced an ultimate issue but it did not cross the line to improper vouching.