Opinion ID: 2524947
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Admissibility of expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases

Text: In Alaska, profile evidence of victims of sexual abuse is admissible and may include expert opinion testimony that the alleged victim's behaviors are consistent with abuse and conform to a clinical finding of abuse. [33] But it must be in response to a claim that the conduct in question is inconsistent with claims of sexual abuse, and it may not go so far as to vouch for the credibility of the complaining witness. [34] Under Broderick, an expert may express an opinion that a person was abused and that the behaviors of that person conform to clinical findings of abuse. [35] In Broderick, we reversed a grant of summary judgment, concluding that a triable issue of fact had been raised by a doctor's affidavit that had been rejected by the superior court. We noted that expert testimony that purports to establish by scientific principles that another is telling the truth treads on dangerous legal ground. [36] However, we concluded that expert testimony in which the expert stated his opinion that [the child] was abused and that her behavior ... was clinically consistent with the finding that she had been sexually molested did not vouch for the child's credibility. [37] We also concluded that under Evidence Rule 702, expert testimony that expresses an opinion on the issue of whether the child had, in fact, been sexually assaulted or abused was proper because it enlightened the jury on a critical and relevant subject of an esoteric nature. [38] Profile testimony may be used to rebut a claim that the complaining witness is lying about the alleged abuse in order to provide an alternative explanation to the jury about seemingly self-impeaching behaviors, but it may not vouch for the witness's credibility. [39] In Russell v. State , the court of appeals noted that a party may not offer evidence that there is a psychological `profile' characteristic of sexual abuse or sexual assault victims to prove that the victim in a particular case fits this profile, and thus that the victim must be telling the truth when he or she claims to have been abused or assaulted. [40] The Russell court did conclude, however, that such profile testimony is admissible in response to a defense claim that the victim's conduct was inconsistent with a claim of sexual assault or sexual abuse. [41] In Russell, profile testimony of battered woman syndrome was admissible because it explained why [the complaining witness] might stay in an abusive relationship and place herself in situations where she could be abused. [42] The court also concluded that such testimony explained why [the complaining witness] might not physically resist Russell's attempt to have sexual intercourse with her. [43] On the other hand, profile testimony in which an expert states that a person fits the profile and that the person is therefore telling the truth is impermissible vouching testimony. [44] Examples of such impermissible testimony include testimony that an alleged victim's report is consistent with valid reports of abuse [45] and testimony that a detailed account of abuse means such abuse occurred. [46] In Cox v. State , the court of appeals concluded that expert testimony that reports of sexual abuse were not inconsistent with the kinds of reports which other young victims of sexual abuse have made was proper insofar as it rebutted defense inferences that the complaining witness's behavior indicated she was lying about the alleged abuse. [47] But the expert also vouched for the alleged victim's credibility when he testified that because [the alleged victim] gave a detailed account of the sexual abuse, [she] had been sexually abused, and this approached plain error. [48] The court of appeals held that the trial court's refusal to allow surrebuttal to this testimony was improper given the highly prejudicial nature of the testimony. [49]