Opinion ID: 2548102
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Allegedly Improper Vouching by Expert Witnesses

Text: Ms. Celis-Garcia next challenges the admission of certain testimony by two of the state's experts, Ellen Walls and Maria Mittelhauser. She argues that both experts gave opinions regarding the truthfulness of C.J. and K.J.'s allegations of sexual abuse, which invaded the province of the jury to determine the children's credibility. Ms. Celis-Garcia argues that two statements made by Ms. Walls and one statement by Ms. Mittelhauser improperly vouched for K.J. and C.J.'s credibility. The first statement challenged by Ms. Celis-Garcia involved Ms. Walls's testimony that K.J. and C.J.'s behavior was consistent with the behavior of other victims of sexual abuse. The second statement challenged by Ms. Celis-Garcia was Ms. Walls' response to a question asking if she had any reason to doubt the truthfulness of the children's allegations. In response to the question, she stated that she had no reason to doubt their truthfulness. The final statement challenged by Ms. Celis-Garcia involved similar testimony by Ms. Mittelhauser in which she testified she had not received any information from the children to cause her to believe they were being untruthful. In child sex abuse cases, there are typically two types of expert testimony that are challenged: generalized and particularized. State v. Churchill, 98 S.W.3d 536, 539 (Mo. banc 2003). An expert gives generalized testimony when he or she describes the general behaviors and characteristics commonly found in children who have been sexually abused. Id. The trial court has discretion to admit generalized testimony. Id. On the other hand, an expert gives particularized testimony when he or she gives testimony regarding the specific victim's credibility as to whether the victim actually was abused. Id. That type of evidence is inadmissible because it usurps the jury's province to determine a witness's credibility. Id. Because Ms. Celis-Garcia's conviction is reversed on the basis of her first point, the Court need not decide whether the admission of Ms. Walls and Ms. Mittelhauser's testimony was erroneous. Should the state seek to introduce the same testimony on remand, the trial court's ruling on the admissibility of that evidence should be governed by whether the testimony is generalized or particularized as defined in Churchill.