Opinion ID: 1628512
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Testimony of Tammy Coney

Text: Next, the appellant contends that the trial court erred in allowing Tammy Coney, a family service worker for the Arkansas Department of Human Services, to offer expert testimony that it was not unusual for child sexual abuse victims to recant their allegations. We recently summarized the law regarding the qualifications of an expert witness in Smith v. State, 330 Ark. 50, 55-56, 953 S.W.2d 870 (1997): Whether a witness qualifies as an expert in a particular field is a matter within the trial court's discretion, and we will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of that discretion. Mace v. State, 328 Ark. 536, 944 S.W.2d 830 (1997). If some reasonable basis exists demonstrating that the witness has knowledge of the subject beyond that of ordinary knowledge, the evidence is admissible as expert testimony. Id. The general test of admissibility of expert testimony is whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence presented or determining a fact in issue. A.R.E. Rule 702; Matthews v. State, 327 Ark. 70, 938 S.W.2d 545 (1997); Stout v. State, 320 Ark. 552, 898 S.W.2d 457 (1995). In addition, expert testimony must be relevant and not misleading or confusing to the jury. Stewart v. State, 316 Ark. 153, 870 S.W.2d 752 (1994). In determining the relevance of the testimony, the proponent must show that the evidence is reliable and sufficiently related to the facts of the case to aid the trier of fact in resolving the dispute. Prater v. State, 307 Ark. 180, 820 S.W.2d 429 (1991). In the case at bar, Ms. Coney testified that she had been involved in investigating child-abuse cases for six and one-half years and had received eight weeks of new-worker training that covered different aspects of abuse, neglect, and family dynamics. Three years prior to trial, Ms. Coney had received one hundred-fifty hours of additional training. In view of Ms. Coney's training and experience, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in qualifying Ms. Coney as an expert and allowing her testimony, as it is apparent that she had knowledge of child abuse-cases beyond that of an ordinary person. See Poyner v. State, 288 Ark. 402, 705 S.W.2d 882 (1986). The appellant also complains that the trial court should not have permitted Ms. Coney's testimony because there was no strong record before the court which indicated that a child-abuse case was before the court and that there was no need for the testimony of Tammy Coney to be made at that time. This specific objection was not made at trial and is thus not preserved for our review. See Stewart v. State, supra.