Opinion ID: 2672299
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Johanna Dupont

Text: ¶9. Troy challenges the trial court’s ruling which allowed Dr. Dupont to state that she had diagnosed Claire as sexually abused. The disputed testimony during Dr. Dupont’s direct examination reads: Q. You performed an external superficial exam on Claire Chaupette; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. Okay. And what were your findings as to that exam? A. She had no apparent injury or abnormality on her genital exam. Q. Okay. And based on the history of her present illness and your patient history and your external exam of her genitalia, where you able to come up with a diagnosis? A. Yes. Q. And what was your diagnosis? ... A. Sexual abuse. Dr. Dupont also was allowed to restate her diagnosis on redirect: Q. Okay. Dr. Dupont, even though your external exam shows no injury or bruising, you still made a diagnosis of sexual abuse; is that correct? ... A. There’s no physical finding. No physical findings ... Q. And you came up with a diagnosis in this case; is that correct? A. Yes. Q. And what was your diagnosis? A. Sexual abuse. 19 Foster v. Noel, 715 So. 2d 174, 183 (Miss. 1998). 20 Langston v. Kidder, 670 So. 2d 1, 4 (Miss. 1995). 7 ¶10. Clearly, Dupont’s diagnosis was an opinion, and, as she stated, it was based on the patient history taken, as well as Dupont’s physical examination of Claire. Her opinion no doubt was based on her specialized knowledge, which can be presented only under the strictures of Rule 702.21 However, the history she relied on was placed in evidence by five other witnesses, namely Claire, Ann, Crawford, Jacobsen, and Banano, and her testimony regarding her physical examination of Claire aided Chaupette’s defense, as the examination revealed no physical injury. We find that any error in the admission of Dupont’s “diagnosis” was clearly harmless and did not result in prejudice to Chaupette.