Opinion ID: 2065816
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Other States' Approaches

Text: A few decisions from other states have held child sexual abuse syndrome evidence inadmissible for any purpose, [6] and some cases have permitted expert testimony opining that, because of the correlation between a child's behavior and the syndrome, the child has been sexually abused. [7] Most jurisdictions, however, have settled somewhere between these two extremes. A significant number of state courts have recognized as a misuse of the syndrome the admission of child sexual abuse syndrome testimony as substantive proof that abuse has been detected in a particular case. Wisconsin courts, for instance, have rejected the use of testimony that the defendant's daughter was a typical case of intrafamilial sexual abuse and thus an incest victim, State v. Haseltine (1984), Wis. Ct. App., 120 Wis.2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673, 675, and have held to be error the admission of expert testimony that a complainant's behavior following an alleged sexual assault was proof that the assault occurred, State v. Jensen (1987), Wis. Ct. App., 141 Wis.2d 333, 415 N.W.2d 519 (requiring evidence of abuse and of seemingly contradictory behavior by complainant as a foundation for admitting syndrome evidence), aff'd (1988), 147 Wis.2d 240, 432 N.W.2d 913. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that a trial court erred in permitting an expert to testify that, in part because the victim's history was consistent with the doctor's experiences dealing with child abuse, he believed that abuse had occurred. Johnson v. State (1987), 292 Ark. 632, 732 S.W.2d 817. Other cases that have likewise rejected the use of syndrome evidence as affirmative proof of the occurrence of abuse include: People v. Bowker (1988), 203 Cal. App.3d 385, 249 Cal. Rptr. 886; Leon, 263 Cal. Rptr. 77; Lantrip v. Commonwealth (1986), Ky., 713 S.W.2d 816; State v. York (1989), Me., 564 A.2d 389; State v. Lawrence (1988), Me., 541 A.2d 1291; State v. Black (1988), Me., 537 A.2d 1154; Goodson v. State (1990), Miss., 566 So.2d 1142; J.Q. II, 617 A.2d 1196; State v. Michaels (1993), App.Div., 264 N.J. Super. 579, 625 A.2d 489, aff'd (1994), 136 N.J. 299, 642 A.2d 1372; People v. Duell (1990), 163 A.D.2d 866, 558 N.Y.S.2d 395; State v. Schimpf (1989), Tenn. Crim. App., 782 S.W.2d 186; Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388; State v. Gokey (1990), 154 Vt. 129, 574 A.2d 766; State v. Jones (1993), 71 Wash. App. 798, 863 P.2d 85, review denied (1994), 124 Wash.2d 1018, 881 P.2d 254. Additional disagreement exists on the issue of the admissibility of syndrome evidence where the expert merely describes certain behavioral characteristics as being consistent with sexual abuse, thereby offering direct proof through implication, rather than where the expert explicitly draws the conclusion for the jury. Numerous cases have ruled such implication evidence inadmissible as proof that an assault occurred. See State v. Moran (1986), 151 Ariz. 378, 385, 728 P.2d 248, 255; Russell v. State (1986), 289 Ark. 533, 712 S.W.2d 916; People v. Jeff (1988), 204 Cal. App.3d 309, 251 Cal. Rptr. 135; Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 391; Michaels, 625 A.2d 489. In contrast, other jurisdictions have ruled in favor of admissibility where the expert presents evidence of abuse through implication but refrains from giving an explicit opinion on whether abuse occurred. See United States v. St. Pierre (1987), 8th Cir., 812 F.2d 417; Rodriguez v. State (1987), Alaska Ct. App., 741 P.2d 1200; Ward v. State (1988), Fla. Dist. Ct. App., 519 So.2d 1082; State v. Reser (1989), 244 Kan. 306, 767 P.2d 1277; State v. Bachman (1989), S.D., 446 N.W.2d 271; Gokey, 574 A.2d 766. It is important to recognize that syndrome evidence is not similarly problematic in all situations. The reliability of syndrome evidence, although highly questionable for purposes of affirmatively proving sexual abuse, is generally accepted for purposes of helping the jury to understand that a complainant's reactions are not atypical of a young sexual assault victim. As the Myers article notes: The accommodation syndrome has a place in the courtroom. The syndrome helps explain why many sexually abused children delay reporting their abuse, and why many children recant allegations of abuse and deny that anything occurred. If use of the syndrome is confined to these rehabilitative functions, the confusion clears, and the accommodation syndrome serves a useful forensic purpose. Myers et al., supra, at 67-68. Thus, behavioral characteristics of child abuse victims, even where inadmissible to prove abuse, are far less controversial when offered to rebut a claim by the defense that a child complainant's behavior  such as delayed reporting or retracting allegations  is inconsistent with her claim of abuse. This more limited, but nonetheless important, purpose is in harmony with the syndrome's original mission. Indeed, [a] myriad of expert writings in the psychology field have countenanced such use of the evidence, which has received nearly universal judicial approval. J.Q. I, 599 A.2d at 183; see also Myers et al., supra, at 68. The following cases, for example, have allowed expert testimony to explain failures to report or delays in reporting incidents of abuse or sexual assault; Bostic v. State (1989), Alaska Ct. App., 772 P.2d 1089, rev'd on other grounds (1991), Alaska, 805 P.2d 344; People v. Hampton (1987), Colo., 746 P.2d 947; People v. Matlock (1986), 153 Mich. App. 171, 395 N.W.2d 274; State v. Sandberg (1987), Minn., 406 N.W.2d 506; Smith v. State (1984), 100 Nev. 570, 688 P.2d 326; State v. Garfield (1986), 34 Ohio App.3d 300, 518 N.E.2d 568, 571; State v. Hicks (1987), 148 Vt. 459, 535 A.2d 776, 777-78; Scadden v. State (1987), Wyo., 732 P.2d 1036, 1047. Several state decisions have allowed such expert testimony to explain recantations or other apparent inconsistencies in children's reports or behavior. See Moran, 728 P.2d at 251-52, 254; Black, 537 A.2d at 1156; State v. Rogers (1987), 293 S.C. 505, 362 S.E.2d 7, 8, overruled in part by State v. Schumpert (1993), S.C., 435 S.E.2d 859, 862 n. 1; Griego v. State (1988), Wyo., 761 P.2d 973. Other cases permitting syndrome testimony to be utilized for rehabilitation purposes include: Bowker, 249 Cal. Rptr. at 891-92; Wheat, 527 A.2d at 273-75; Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 399; State v. Myers (1984), Minn., 359 N.W.2d 604, 609-10; J.Q. II, 617 A.2d at 1209; State v. Middleton (1983), 290 Or. 427, 657 P.2d 1215, 1221; State v. Hudnall (1987), 293 S.C. 97, 359 S.E.2d 59, overruled in part by State v. Schumpert (1993), S.C., 435 S.E.2d 859, 862; Jones, 863 P.2d at 98-99. Many of these courts have differentiated between admitting such evidence to explain the victim's seemingly suspicious behaviors and admitting it to prove that abuse occurred. See, e.g., Moran, 728 P.2d at 251-52 (approving expert testimony to rehabilitate child but not testimony that the alleged victim is telling the truth); Bowker, 249 Cal. Rptr. at 891-92 (permitting expert testimony's use to rehabilitate witness concerning delays and recantation but directing that jury be instructed not to use the testimony to determine whether the victim was molested); Matlock, 395 N.W.2d at 277-78 (limiting expert testimony to rehabilitation concerning delays while precluding it to prove abuse or confirm truthfulness of witness). The use of syndrome evidence for rehabilitative purposes has not met with universal approval. In Dunkle, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court prohibited from admission in child sexual abuse cases essentially all expert testimony concerning behavior patterns. Dunkle, 602 A.2d 830. [8] Dunkle's approach is noteworthy because much of the expert testimony excluded seems to have been offered for rehabilitative, not diagnostic, purposes. The evidence sought to explain in general terms, without reference to the alleged victim, why a victim would delay reporting an offense, why a victim might be unable to recall exact dates and times of an alleged offense, and why victims of sexual abuse omitted details of the incident when they first told their stor[ies]. Dunkle, 602 A.2d at 831. Permitting such evidence, the Dunkle court believed, would infringe upon the jury's right to determine credibility, because the reasons for delay, inconsistencies, and omissions in victims' allegations are easily understood by lay people and do not require expert analysis. Id. at 836-37. Such a complete exclusion of child sexual abuse syndrome evidence for any purpose is generally not favored. See Myers et al., supra, at 89, 92-93 (recognizing need for expert testimony to counteract jurors' commonly held misconceptions about sexual abuse and to explain emotional reactions that cause children's seemingly self-impeaching behavior). A contrasting approach has been taken by the Michigan Supreme Court. While finding syndrome evidence admissible when a victim's behavior becomes an issue in a case, it noted that: the evidence has a very limited use and should be admitted cautiously because of the danger of permitting an inference that as a result of certain behavior sexual abuse in fact occurred, when evidence of the syndrome is not a conclusive finding of abuse. Although syndrome evidence may be appropriate as a tool for purposes of treatment, we hold that it is unreliable as an indicator of sexual abuse. Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 406. The Michigan court allowed the testimony to give the jury a framework of possible alternatives for the behaviors of the victim at issue, and to assist the jury in dispelling any popular misconception commonly associated with the demonstrated reaction. Id. The court cautioned that: to assist the jury in understanding the unique reactions of victims of sexual assault, the testimony should be limited to whether the behavior of this particular victim is common to the class of reported child abuse victims. The expert's evaluation of the individual behavior traits at issue is not centered on what was observed in this victim, but rather whether the behavioral sciences recognize this behavior as being a common reaction to a unique criminal act. Id. at 406-07. The Beckley court warned: Given the abhorrence of the crime, it is inevitable that those who treat a child victim will have an emotional inclination toward protecting the child victim. The expert who treats a child victim may lose some objectivity concerning a particular case. Therefore to avoid the pitfall of the treating professional being inclined to give an opinion regarding whether the complaining witness had been sexually abused, we caution the trial court to carefully scrutinize the treating professional's ability to aid the trier of fact when exercising discretion and qualifying such an expert witness. Beckley, 456 N.W.2d at 408. The Michigan Supreme Court concluded that it was unwilling to have the so-called child sexual abuse syndrome ... introduced as a scientific tool, standing on its own merits as a doctrine or benchmark for determining causality in child sexual abuse cases. Id. at 409. However, it also held that: persons otherwise properly qualified as experts in dealing with sexually abused children should be permitted to rely on their own experience and their knowledge of the experience of others to rebut an inference that specific behavioral patterns attributed to the victim are not [sic] uncharacteristic of the class of child sexual abuse victims. Such witnesses should be permitted to testify regarding characteristics of sexually abused children so long as it is without reference to a fixed set of behaviors constituting a syndrome. Id. Commentators have embraced judicial decisions rejecting the use of CSAAS to prove abuse and advocating limiting its use to explaining victim behaviors that are seemingly inconsistent with their allegations. See, e.g., Marian D. Hall, The Role of Psychologists as Experts in Cases Involving Allegations of Child Sexual Abuse, 23 Fam.L.Q. 451, 463 (1989) (noting that behavioral science research does not demonstrate the existence of an accurate method of identifying an individual child as having been sexually abused); McCord, supra, at 67 (advocating that the admissibility of expert opinion testimony be limited to explaining the complainant's unusual actions); Myers et al., supra, at 68 (identifying the utility of expert testimony on child sexual abuse syndrome to rehabilitate the credibility of victims whose behavior may appear self-impeaching).