Opinion ID: 2623482
Heading Depth: 5
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Dr. Krugman

Text: The State first called Dr. Richard Krugman. The State had indicated in an earlier pretrial notice of expert witnesses that [i]t is anticipated that [Krugman's] testimony will be the same as what is in his report, as well as his grand jury testimony. At trial, the State spent much time going over Krugman's considerable qualifications. With no objection from the defense, the State offered Krugman as an expert in the area of pediatrics and child abuse. Krugman indicated on direct that, early in the investigation of K.T.'s death, the State had asked him to determine whether the incident was an accident or child abuse. When asked whether Dague's explanations of the events were consistent with the injury inflicted, Krugman indicated that the injuries were so severe that neither a fall from a couch onto a carpeted floor nor a simple drop onto a kitchen floor or other surfaceeven followed by a blow to the head from a juice bottlecould explain the baby's injuries. Rather, he concluded the injuries could only be explained as non-accidental. On cross Krugman acknowledged that part of the process in determining whether an incident is abuse or an accident involves look[ing] at the caretaker or the person who is being held responsible for that injury. But when the defense then asked about the dynamics involved in that person, the State objected that such questioning was beyond the scope of Krugman's expertise, was irrelevant profile evidence, and was best handled by a sociologist or psychologist pediatrician. The court initially allowed the questioning as a legitimate exploration of the contours and the limits of Krugman's testimony, and indicated to Krugman that he should alert the court if any questioning was beyond his expertise. But when the defense attempted to explore the factors of how an abuse situation can develop and the State again objected, the court this time sustained the objection as beyond Krugman's expertise. Defense counsel countered that Krugman had testified similarly at grand jury and in his deposition interview, and had indicated he felt comfortable answering such questions. The court responded that, regardless of whether Krugman testified about such factors at grand jury, the State wasn't offering him as an expert in that area, that he wasn't the defense expert, and that such issues were not covered on direct examination and thus the questioning was outside the scope of direct examination. After redirect examination, the defense asked to approach the bench and requested an opportunity to recall Dr. Krugman at a later time. The following bench conference then took place: THE COURT: Well, he's not your witness, and heyou didn't retain him. The fact that you asked him questions outside the scope of what he testified to in the ... pretrial preparation doesn't mean you have any right to call him as your own witness in your defense case. Ms. Henry? MS. HENRY [prosecutor]: Well, that's correct. I mean if they want to contract with him that's fine, too.... My position is going to be the same how that this is beyond his expertise. They should be bringing in a sociologist or a psychologist or something. .... THE COURT [to defense counsel]: So if you're going to hold him your agency is going to have to be the one that pays the tab, that's all there is to it. MS. BRENNAN [defense counsel]: Okay, that's fine. Because Krugman was scheduled to fly out that very day, and it's not fair to hold him beyond today, the court excused the jury in order to question Krugman immediately as to whether or not there's any testimony he can give. The prosecution sent a police officer to retrieve Krugman. Rather than waste time waiting for Krugman's return, the court then asked defense counsel to go ahead and present by offer of proof the information they expected to elicit from Krugman's testimony. Defense counsel again reiterated that they were simply seeking to explore what Krugman had already testified to at grand jury: how abusive situations arise. Specifically, defense counsel expected Krugman to again testify that:  any person has the propensity to hurt a child;  stress can sometimes set the person off;  the child's behavior might trigger this type of situation;  sometimes it's just dumb luck that the planets could be aligned and various factors cause a person to lose control and commit an unintentional act; and  a quick 911 call might be an indication that such abuse is an isolated incident. At this point the court inquired of defense counsel whether they had given notice of Krugman being an expert with respect to these theories. Defense counsel responded that they had relied on Krugman's grand jury testimony, and expected him to testify likewise at trial. Throughout this exchange, the State's position was that such information was outside Dr. Krugman's expertise and was best left to a psychologist, social worker, or psychiatrist. Concluding that the information was not only outside of Krugman's expertise but was also outside the scope of the direct examination, the superior court refused to allow defense counsel to recall Krugman, not even for additional voir dire questioning.