Opinion ID: 1709596
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The court erred in accepting Carol Langendun as an expert in the field of child abuse.

Text: ¶ 3. Hodgin asserts that he had no objection to Langendun being accepted as an expert in the field of forensic interviewing, but that he objected to Langendun being accepted as an expert in the field of child abuse and to Langendun's testimony that M.C. was molested. Further, Hodgin asserts that the trial court erroneously accepted Langendun as an expert in child abuse and that Langendun was used as a human polygraph. ¶ 4. Hodgin's entire argument on this issue pertains to Langendun as a forensic interviewer. Such an argument is improper because Hodgin had no objection to Langendun being certified as an expert in forensic interviewing. On direct examination of Langendun, the following exchange occurred: Q. What is a forensic interviewer? A. It's an investigative interview conducted to assess whether or not a child has been abused and, if so, what happened in the child's own words. It's conducted in a neutral fact-finding manner, so I, as an interviewer, don't lead, or coerce, a child into making a statement. Rather, they are allowed to give their own statement in their own words. Then, on cross-examination: Q. Okay. All right. So is it tantamount to be more on a psychological side? A. No. It's investigative, because forensic interviewing is considered a soft science. There's no way that science can test whether or not a child is with 100 percent accuracy telling the truth about sexual abuse allegations or not, because they can't abuse children to test, and, therefore, we have to rely on research on child development issues and all sorts of other factors to formulate a finding based on the statement that the child gives during the interview. ¶ 5. Hodgin was clearly informed of the scope of forensic interviewing and he had no objection. ¶ 6. In addition, Hodgin asserts that Langendun was improperly used as a human polygraph. In support of this claim, Hodgin cites Carr v. State, 655 So.2d 824, 836 (Miss.1995). However, Carr pertains to the admissibility of polygraph results and is not applicable to this case. Further, Hodgin failed to object during Langendun's testimony regarding M.C.'s consistency, reliability and/or truthfulness, and objected only later based on her characterization of I think. The following exchange occurred during direct examination of Langendun: Q. Okay. Is it unusual that [M.C.] didn't tell what had happened to him immediately? A. It's not at all unusual. When a child is molested, it's very confusing, especially when it's a person of authority, like an adult. We're taught from birth to obey and respect and never contradict an adult, so, you know, when he was molested, I think he displayed that he was not  BY [COUNSEL FOR HODGIN]: Judge, I object to her characterization of I think. If she's going to give an expert opinion, that's one thing, but speculation, I think it would be something else. ¶ 7. Hodgin is not entitled to raise new issues on appeal that he has not first presented to the trial court for determination. Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836, 842 (Miss.2005). Since objections must be specific in nature, the issue was never properly brought before the trial court. In order to preserve an issue for appeal, counsel must object. The failure to object acts as a waiver. Carr v. State, 873 So.2d 991, 1004 (Miss.2004) (citing Oates v. State, 421 So.2d 1025, 1030 (Miss.1982)). ¶ 8. We find that this issue is without merit.