Opinion ID: 2399091
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Admission of the Testimony of Dr. Ricci

Text: [¶ 11] Cormier contends that the court should not have allowed Dr. Ricci to testify that the injuries to the victim's genital area were not consistent with consensual sexual activity. He argues that, in reality, the testimony went to the ultimate issue of the case because the crucial issue was whether the sexual activity between Cormier and the victim was consensual. [¶ 12] Rule 702, of the Maine Rules of Evidence, governs the admissibility of expert testimony and provides: If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise. [¶ 13] In order to be admissible, expert testimony must be relevant and [] assist the trier of fact [in] understand[ing] the evidence or [in] determin[ing] a fact in issue. State v. Williams, 388 A.2d 500, 504 (Me.1978). Dr. Ricci's testimony concerning the nature of the victim's injuries is relevant to the present case because it has a tendency to make the existence of [a] fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence. M.R. Evid. 401. Dr. Ricci's testimony bears directly on the issue of whether the sexual contact between the parties was consensual, a crucial and relevant element of the crimes charged, and aids the fact-finder because it is not the type of knowledge that an ordinary juror possesses. [¶ 14] Contrary to Cormier's contention, an expert opinion is not objectionable because it embraces an ultimate issue to be decided by the trier of fact. M.R. Evid. 704. Moreover, Dr. Ricci conceded that he could not definitively state to this jury. . . that these findings indicate rape. The court's determination that Dr. Ricci could testify that the injuries of the victim were inconsistent with consensual intercourse, therefore, was not clearly erroneous.