Opinion ID: 1897769
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory as Evidence of Plaintiff's Exaggeration of Complaints for Litigation Purposes

Text: Appellant has also assigned error to the trial court's refusal to strike testimony from a defense expert witness in psychiatry that his testing of the plaintiff by use of the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory demonstrated that she had exaggerated her complaints for purposes of litigation. Appellant argues that the trial judge erred as a matter of law by refusing to strike the testimony of defense expert witness, Dr. John Henderson, that the plaintiff had exaggerated her complaints. We agree. In presenting their defense, Appellees called Dr. Henderson, a forensic psychiatrist practicing in Baltimore, who prior to the trial had conducted a mental-status exam of Appellant, during which he administered the Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI) upon her. The MMPI is a widely used psychological test designed to measure ten general possibilities for abnormality in psychological function. The test consists of approximately 560 questions, each calling for a true or false response. The MMPI has several built-in validity scales, designed to determine the extent to which the test is accurately measuring the traits it purports to measure and to help detect whether the taker is attempting to lie or appear in a falsely virtuous light. See People v. Stoll, 49 Cal.3d 1136, 265 Cal.Rptr. 111, 783 P.2d 698, 704 (1989). [11] Dr. Henderson concluded from his examination and the results of the MMPI that Appellant displayed no clinical indication that she was afflicted with either the depression or post traumatic stress disorder from which she claimed to be suffering. Testifying as an expert at trial, however, Dr. Henderson did not limit his testimony to announcing this conclusion to the jury. Instead, despite Appellant's motion in limine to exclude any testimony by the doctor that might impugn her credibility as a witness, the trial court permitted Dr. Henderson to describe the MMPI to the jury as a test that gives you a profile of the validity and the consistency of the individual answering it, sort of, I hate to use the word, mini truth, or lie detector, truth detector. Despite his professed discomfort with his characterization of the MMPI, Dr. Henderson went on to advise the jury that his testing of Appellant revealed a frequency of unusual, bizarre complaints endorsed by the patient on the test. Thus, the doctor informed the jury, What this represents is that there's an extreme exaggeration of unusual complaints. The doctor, however, had not yet finished his attack on the veracity of Appellant and her claims. In replying to defense counsel's request for his opinion as to the precise form of Appellant's exaggeration, Dr. Henderson stated, in part, Now what's important here is there's exaggeration of emotional difficulties.... This is a pattern in the validity scales that is seen predominantly in litigation involved patients. Counsel for Appellant at this point immediately requested the court to strike Dr. Henderson's last comment as totally inappropriate, pointing out that the Court of Appeals has made it clear that a psychologist is not a lie detector... who takes away from the jury its responsibility, it doesn't matter what testing he's using, we don't have polygraphs in the courtroom. The court denied Appellant's request, concluding that this test is measuring the truth, not for my purpose of truth, [but] the honesty of the individual while taking the test.... And your recitation of the law is correct, but it doesn't apply here. This Court has repeatedly reaffirmed that courts in Maryland are improper fora for the introduction and interpretation of lie detectors, polygraphs, or any like measurement of a witness's veracity. See Guesfeird v. State, 300 Md. 653, 658, 480 A.2d 800, 803 (1984) (reiterating firm rule that polygraph tests are not admissible, including fact of taking such a test). Our resistance against admitting evidence of lie detection applies equally where human beings are the fount of such testimony: We have not recognized that a witness may be a more reliable lie detector than a polygraph machine. We have never indicated that a person can qualify as an expert in credibility, no matter what his experience or expertise. We have insisted that, in a jury trial, the credibility to be given a witness and the weight to be given his testimony be confined to the resolution of all of the jurors. It is the settled law of this State that a witness, expert or otherwise, may not give an opinion on whether he believes a witness is telling the truth. Testimony from a witness relating to the credibility of another witness is to be rejected as a matter of law. Bohnert v. State, 312 Md. 266, 278, 539 A.2d 657, 663 (1988). See also Hutton v. State, 339 Md. 480, 503, 663 A.2d 1289, 1300 (1995) ( [N]o matter how learned in his or her field of expertise, no expert is in a better position to assess the credibility of a witness than is the jury.) Reviewing the testimony in context, we conclude that the witness went beyond a mere expression of opinion as to the plaintiff's honesty ... while taking the test. Moreover, Dr. Henderson's reference to the MMPI as a mini-truth, or lie detector was inadmissible, highly inflammable and prejudicial. Even if the testimony regarding the MMPI test results were admissible in evidence for another valid purpose, we hold that as presented in this case, the evidence should have been excluded and the trial judge should have granted the motion to strike.