Opinion ID: 881474
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Issue III: Was it plain error to permit the use of expert testimony to identify Janey Doe as the victim of sexual abuse?

Text: Defendant argues that even though no objection was made at trial, the admission of testimony by Rochelle Beley and Sandi Burns indicating Janey Doe had been sexually abused was improper because it was not scientifically reliable. Defendant claims the issue is reviewable, however, under Rule 103(d), M.R.Evid., and our previous decision in State v. Wilkins (1987), 229 Mont. 78, 746 P.2d 588, as plain error. The plain error rule is subject, in criminal proceedings, to subsection (2) of § 46-20-701, MCA, which reads: (2) Any error, defect, irregularity, or variance which does not affect substantial rights shall be disregarded. No claim alleging an error affecting jurisdictional or constitutional rights may be noticed on appeal, if the alleged error was not objected to as provided in XX-XX-XXX, unless the defendant establishes that the error was prejudicial as to his guilt or punishment and that: (a) the right asserted in the claim did not exist at the time of the trial and has been determined to be retroactive in its application; (b) the prosecutor, the judge, or a law enforcement agency suppressed evidence from the defendant or his attorney that prevented the claim from being raised and disposed of; or (c) material and controlling facts upon which the claim is predicated were not known to the defendant or his attorney and could not have been ascertained by the exercise of reasonable diligence. Defendant presents no evidence that establishes the alleged error was prejudicial as to his guilt or punishment and that meets any of the three criteria listed in § 46-20-701(2), MCA. We have stated before that when expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases has not been objected to at trial as improper, this Court will not entertain the issue on appeal. State v. Eiler (1988), 234 Mont. 38, 52, 762 P.2d 210, 219. We affirm the decision of the District Court. TURNAGE, C.J., and HUNT, BARZ and McDONOUGH, JJ., concur.