Opinion ID: 618808
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Ms. Hatlelid’s Testimony

Text: Kathleen Hatlelid, a physician’s assistant who examined the victim, testified as an expert witness that she diagnosed the victim with “[s]exual abuse by history.” Report and Recommendation, Burling v. Addison, No. CIV-10-175HE, 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 143094, at ,  (W.D. Okla. July 30, 2010) (Aplt. App. at 5, 9) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applicant asserts that Ms. Hatlelid’s opinion was based solely on her reading of a police report and her one physical examination of the victim, which revealed no physical evidence of abuse. He asserts that the testimony “[b]ased upon this flimsy frame of reference” therefore constituted improper vouching. Aplt. Br. at 15–16. The OCCA held that the trial court had properly admitted Ms. Hatlelid’s testimony. It concluded that she “did not improperly vouch for the credibility of the victim as she did not tell the jury what result to reach,” and “[w]hether or not her opinion was supported by sufficient evidence was a question for the jury.” Summary Op. at 2, Burling v. State, No. F-2006-1288 (Okla. Crim. App. May 1, 2008) (Aplt. App. at 62). Applicant fails to show that the OCCA’s determination was contrary to or unreasonable under federal law. He does not challenge Ms. Hatlelid’s qualifications as an expert. Nor does he explain why it was improper for an expert to rely on the information provided to Ms. Hatlelid. More importantly, he cites no opinion of the Supreme Court that would require exclusion of this expert -5- testimony. See Parker v. Scott, 394 F.3d 1302, 1309–12 (10th Cir. 2005) (rejecting habeas challenge to similar expert testimony). In the absence of a transcript of Ms. Hatlelid’s testimony (which Applicant did not provide to this court), 1 we cannot say that reasonable jurists would debate the district court’s rejection of this claim. Applicant also suggests that the OCCA has been inconsistent in its decisions on whether to admit testimony on sexual abuse, and that this inconsistency implicates his rights to due process and equal protection under federal law. But he failed to raise this issue in district court, and we therefore decline to consider it. See Kelley v. City of Albuquerque, 542 F.3d 802, 817 (10th Cir. 2008).