Opinion ID: 1744326
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Contamination testimony

Text: Klem asserts error in that Dr. Cook was permitted to testify, over objection, that he entertained the opinion that [Lyle] had not been `contaminated' by leading questions to tell a certain kind of story. He argues that asking Dr. Cook to express an opinion as to whether [Lyle] had, in fact, been contaminated ... was tantamount to asking Dr. Cook whether he believed [Lyle] was telling the truth and invaded the province of the jury. I disagree. Initially, I note that it was Klem's trial counsel who broached the subject of contamination when he initiated the following exchange with Dr. Cook: [6] Q Now, have you heard of the phrase contamination of witnesses in a child abuse case? A Yes. Q You know what I'm referring to? A Yes, I do. Q Is it possible that [Lyle] has been contaminated? A It's possible, yes, it is. Q Will you explain to the jury what we're referring to when we say contamination? A Well, if children are asked questions, incorrectly leading questions often enough, there is the worry that they will then begin to answer the questions the way the questioner wants them to be answered, and then that will become their standard answer. And this is why we try to be as careful as we can when we examine a person like this and not ask leading questions. If you ask the question did X do this to you, it may plant that in the child's mind that, yes, X did this or this adult wants me to say that, and then the child may answer Q And you testified you attempted to avoid that in your examination of Lyle? A Yes, I did. On redirect examination, Dr. Cook later testified as to how to determine whether or not a witness has been contaminated and also testified that, in his opinion, Lyle was not contaminated. The subject of testimonial contamination of a child witness through leading questions is one in which most jurors are not likely to have much, if any, experience. Thus, Dr. Cook's opinion could be of appreciable help to the jury in a field in which the ordinary juror needs help [ State v. Carroll, 123 N.W.2d 659, 673 (N.D.1963) ], especially after his testimony that it was possible that Lyle had been contaminated. We do not believe Dr. Cook's testimony lent a stamp of undue legitimacy [ State v. Logue, 372 N.W.2d 151, 157 (S.D. 1985) ] to Lyle's testimony. Nor is this a case like United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336 (8th Cir.1986), where an expert on child abuse was allowed to testify that Wendy was believable and that he could `see no reason why she would not be telling the truth in this matter' ( Id. at 339), thus putting his stamp of believability on Wendy's entire story. Id. at 340. Dr. Cook only testified that Lyle had not been contaminated by incorrectly leading questions. Dr. Cook did not give an opinion of the accuracy, reliability or credibility of a particular witness in the case being tried. State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 475, 720 P.2d 73, 76 (1986). I conclude that the trial court did not err in allowing Dr. Cook to testify that, in his opinion, Lyle had not been contaminated.