Opinion ID: 2631632
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 9

Heading: Whether the State called or benefited from a psychological expert Chapman v. State [31]

Text: Although the State did not call a designated psychological expert to testify to the victim's credibility, the State called William Ettinger, the LVMPD detective who examined the victim. We conclude that Ettinger testified as an expert witness. [32] We have previously stated that a person need not be a licensed psychologist or psychiatrist in order for their testimony to constitute that of an expert. [33] [W]here a State's expert testifies concerning behavioral patterns and responses associated with victims of child sexual abuse, courts have recognized that this type of testimony puts the child's behavioral and psychological characteristics at issue. [34] However, in Chapman, this court stated that the clinical forensic interviewer who interviewed the victim concerning the incidents of sexual abuse does not qualify as an `expert' for purposes of whether the State relied on an expert. [35] Thus, under a literal reading of Chapman, Detective Ettinger is not considered a psychological expert for the purposes of whether Abbott is entitled to an independent psychological examination. We conclude that Chapman 's blanket conclusion that the clinical forensic interviewer is not an expert is too inflexible and must be modified. A witness is acting as an expert witness, for the purposes of Koerschner, when he does more than merely relate the facts and instead analyzes the facts and/or states whether there was evidence that the victim was coached or biased against the defendant. Therefore, should the State decide to call its forensic investigator, the State should limit the testimony to recitation of the facts of the interview. If the State intends that the investigator will testify beyond the facts of the case and will provide his own experiences and assessments of the interview, the State must notify the district court prior to trial, so as to afford the defendant time to request his own independent psychological evaluation of the victim or otherwise obtain rebuttal testimony. To illustrate, Detective Ettinger testified that pursuant to his employ in the sexual abuse detail, he received training on how to interview a child witness. His training included attendance at several conferences describing techniques for effective interviewing of a child witness. Detective Ettinger testified about the concepts he is concerned with when interviewing a child witness. He stated, You want to make sure you don't ask the child any leading questions. You want to ask them open-ended questions so they tell you what happened. You also want to find out what the child's vocabulary is; what do they call certain things. You want to use their words, because if you used your words they don't understand what you're talking to and you're not going to get a truthful answer. You want to make sure they understand the concept of a truth or a lie, understand spacial [sic] concepts, things like that. Detective Ettinger then described the interview with the victim, and he detailed the mechanisms he used to ensure that it was a fair interview. He testified, When we started off the interview I told [the victim] she could correct me, if at any time I made a mistake. She didn't get in trouble for correcting me. I even test the child when I do that to see if they will. . . . . [I] [u]sually misstat[e] their age or what grade they are in. . . . . To make sure the victim or the interviewee understands the concept that they actually can correct me without getting in trouble. When asked if Detective Ettinger discussed the difference between telling the truth and a lie, he testified that he discusses that with the victim. He testified, I hold up a pencil or a pen, whatever I'm using, and sayask the interviewee if I call this an elephant would I be telling the truth or a lie? They say I'm telling a lie. At that time we make a promise to only tell the truth while we're talking to each other. Detective Ettinger then testified that he performed the above technique with the victim in this case and that her answers were consistent with what he expected. He then described other techniques that he used to determine whether the child understands the concepts of being touched on top of clothing or underneath clothing, colors, and anatomy. Finally, when describing his interview with the victim, Detective Ettinger testified, Q. In terms of the interviews you do with children, let me clarifyhow old was [the victim] during this interview? A. She was nine at that time. . . . . Q. Did she give good detail for a person  A. Yes. . . . . Q. Now, during your interview do you have any safeguards to try and determine whether a witness has been coached in terms of what to report? A. Yes. Q. Did you use those safeguards in this case? A. Yes. Q. Could you determine whether or not there was any evidence of being coached or led or told what to say to you during the interview? A. I didn't find any, no. Q. Did you also discuss a concept of fun things that are done between a witness and the suspect? A. Yes. Q. Did you do that in this case? A. Yes, I did. Q. What would be your purpose in discussing fun things done with the Defendant? A. To see if there is a grudge or to validate what the victim is saying. Um, its been my experience that children, if they are having fun with an individual there's no reason for them to make up the allegation that there is one. I ask them what are some of the fun things they do to show there was a happy[ ] co-existence between the two of them. . . . . Q. Do you do that just to make sure there's not a bias or grudge that they pursue? A. Correct. Detective Ettinger then testified that the victim only discussed fun things that she did with Abbott and did not mention anything that was not fun. Detective Ettinger's testimony discusses, at great length, the techniques and safeguards Detective Ettinger utilizes to ensure a truthful and accurate accounting by the child victim. He described behavioral patterns and responses associated with victims of child sexual abuse. [36] Most importantly, through description of the techniques he used and the victim's responses to these techniques, Detective Ettinger's testimony strongly indicated that the victim's allegations were true and that she was a credible witness. Therefore, in so testifying, because Detective Ettinger had personally examined the victim, analyzed the facts, and gave his opinion whether the victim had been coerced or was biased, Detective Ettinger testified as an expert witness for the State. This is not to say that in every instance of child sexual abuse the investigating officer will be deemed a psychological expert. Chapman remains good law when a witness merely recites percipient facts. However, in situations such as this, where the investigating officer has training in interviewing child sexual assault victims, describes techniques used to determine truthfulness, analyzes the facts of the interview, and/or states whether there was evidence that the victim was coached or biased against the defendant, the investigating officer will be deemed a psychological expert for the purposes of Koerschner.