Opinion ID: 1711961
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Pucci's Testimony as Jensen Evidence

Text: ¶ 19. The court of appeals concluded that Dr. Pucci's testimony was tantamount to Jensen evidence. The State asserts that Dr. Pucci's testimony was not Jensen evidence because she did not offer an opinion that D.F.'s behavior was consistent with the behavior of persons known to be sexual assault victims. ¶ 20. Dr. Pucci's testimony upon direct examination contained a detailed description of her interactions with and treatment of D.F. This included her factual testimony that D.F. had reported a sexual assault to her and that the bulk of D.F.'s 1997 treatment was in response to the sexual assault. As Dr. Pucci's factual testimony concluded, the prosecutor engaged her in the following exchange: Q Did you ever discuss with [D.F.] in the course[] of your treatment why she delayed this report for over a year? A Yes. We talked about why she finally did report it, and she talked about not wanting to report it when I saw her in 1996 because she and her family didn't want to press charges; and that changed throughout the course of time, and by 1997 she did want to report it . . . . Q Dr. Pucci, do you have an opinion as to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty why someone would not report a crime like this under these circumstances? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection, your Honor. THE COURT: It's overruled. The witness may answer. A Could you repeat the question? Q Do you have an opinion to a reasonable degree of psychological certainty why someone would, in this position, would not immediately report a crime like this? A Often people are reluctant to report this kind of crime because of threats the offender or the abuser makes to them about it, either directly telling them not to tell or threatening them if they do tell. Often people are embarrassed. They may be afraid they are not going to be believed. Sometimes they have some positive feelings about the abuser and may not want to get that person into trouble. Those tend to be the most common reasons. [3] ¶ 21. We agree with the court of appeals that Dr. Pucci's testimony made the requisite comparison between D.F.'s behavior and the common behaviors of sexual assault victims. In arguing that it did not, the State is asking this court to hold that Dr. Pucci's testimony would have been Jensen evidence only if she had used magic words such as D.F.'s behaviors are consistent with that of persons known to be sexual assault victims. We decline to adopt such a mechanistic approach. Instead, we determine that a jury would interpret the prosecutor's questions along with Dr. Pucci's answer to provide the comparison that is the essence of Jensen evidence. [4] ¶ 22. The phrasing of the prosecutor's questions and the substance of Dr. Pucci's answer combined to send a clear message to the jury that D.F.'s behaviors were consistent with those of known sexual assault victims. The factual portion of Dr. Pucci's testimony established that she knew D.F. to be a sexual assault victim. The prosecutor then solicited her expert opinion as to what someone would do under these circumstances and in this position. This made it apparent to the jury that a direct comparison was to be drawn between D.F. and others in her circumstances or position, which, according to the factual testimony of Dr. Pucci, were the circumstances or position of a sexual assault victim. [5] ¶ 23. In addition, upon redirect examination, Dr. Pucci gave further testimony that reinforced for the jury that she was equating D.F.'s behaviors with those commonly observed in known sexual assault victims: Q Dr. Pucci, what was your recollection of the reason [D.F.] did not want to report this in 1996? A She did not want to press charges against Mr. Rizzo, and she just wanted him to leave them alone and just wanted him to go away and not hurt anyone again. Q Did she ever discuss with you anything in regard to concerns about whether or not she would be believed? Was that ever discussed that you recall or not? A She told me that he, that Mr. Rizzo, had told her that if she told anyone she would not be believed. . . . . Q 1997. Dr. Pucci, I'm framing that question in terms of your contact with her in 1997. Did she indicate at that time whether that was something she had internalized as a reason she didn't want to report, or was she discussing that with you as one of the many things that was said? [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Objection. THE COURT: Overruled. A My impression is that she had internalized it. The reasons that Dr. Pucci gave in explaining why D.F. did not report the sexual assault are strikingly similar to the reasons she gave earlier in her testimony explaining why sexual assault victims generally delay reporting. This similarity would also lead a jury to make the comparison that is the essence of Jensen evidence.