Opinion ID: 901815
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Whether the Circuit Court Erred in Allowing Expert Testimony.

Text: [¶ 37.] Muhm argues that the State violated the discovery order by not providing Dr. Fiferman's specific opinions before trial. Our standard of review for the violation of a discovery order mirrors the standard applied when reviewing both mistrial motions and evidentiary issues. State v. Reay, 2009 SD 10, ¶ 39, 762 N.W.2d 356, 367-68 (citation omitted). [This Court] presume[s] the evidentiary rulings made by a trial court are correct, and review[s] those rulings under an abuse of discretion standard. State v. Krebs, 2006 SD 43, ¶ 19, 714 N.W.2d 91, 99. Further, if a discovery order is violated, we still must determine whether the defendant suffered any material prejudice as a result[.] Reay, 2009 SD 10, ¶ 39, 762 N.W.2d at 368. Material prejudice is established `when in all probability ... it produced some effect upon the final result and affected rights of the party assigning it.' Id. (citation omitted). [¶ 38.] The circuit court's discovery order required the State to provide the defense with [a] complete listing, designation, and identification of any and all experts the prosecution intends to offer during its case in chief, as well as a complete listing, designation, summary, and identification of each and every expert opinion which will be offered in the case in chief, or which is exculpatory or inculpatory in any way. (Emphasis added.) The State provided notice that Dr. Fiferman would give testimony on topics relating to the traits of sexually abused children. The notice stated: The State will offer testimony regarding the delayed reporting of assaults of children along with the trauma and psychological effects of a child who has been sexually assaulted. Dr. Fiferman will also testify as to the behavior of children who have been assaulted and the mannerisms in which children display adverse affects [sic] to such traumas. Dr. Fiferman will discuss how grooming works to discourage reporting and enhances the relationships between the perpetrator and the child victim. Further, his testimony will be regarding how children communicate to others when they have been assaulted and what difficulties there are in having children describe or discuss being sexually assaulted. The State provided no report or written document providing further specifics of Dr. Fiferman's topics or whether his testimony might include opinions. [¶ 39.] Before Dr. Fiferman testified, Muhm moved to prevent his testimony because the State had not provided more specifics. The State responded that there was no discovery violation as it had provided notice regarding the topics Dr. Fiferman would be addressing. The State also pointed out that Dr. Fiferman prepared no report because he had never interviewed the boys. The circuit court found that the State did not comply with the discovery order, but it allowed Dr. Fiferman to testify. [¶ 40.] On appeal, the State argues that even if there was a technical violation of the discovery order, the violation did not prejudice Muhm. The State points out that its notice outlined the topics of Dr. Fiferman's testimony. The notice specifically indicated that Dr. Fiferman would testify to the fact that children delay reporting because of grooming and have difficulty describing or discussing the abuse they have suffered. Muhm responds that he was prejudiced by not knowing what [Dr. Fiferman's] opinions and testimonial substance were prior to hearing them for the first time in the courtroom. Therefore, Muhm contends that he could not compare the expert opinions with literature on the topics and consider such in connection with the cross-examination. Considering the notice and actual testimony given, we conclude that Muhm was not prejudiced. [10] [¶ 41.] Muhm acknowledges that Dr. Fiferman's testimony consisted of generalities, including such things as how Dr. Fiferman had dealt with both perpetrators and victims, what grooming was, examples of grooming behaviors, and how children can act. Muhm also acknowledges that Dr. Fiferman ... testified in rambling fashion using examples from his own experience with clients about how the grooming process works between molesters and children, how children say different things at different times, delayed reporting, and how they will still go someplace where they are being molested. [¶ 42.] This acknowledgment and our review of Dr. Fiferman's testimony reveal that his testimony essentially related only to the general topics included in the State's notice. Dr. Fiferman did not provide any testimony regarding J.C., C.S., or Muhm. Furthermore, considering the pretrial allegations and the notice given, Muhm could not have been surprised as to how Dr. Fiferman would testify on these topics. Because Dr. Fiferman's testimony was limited to a general discussion of the disclosed topics, and because this disclosure provided Muhm with the opportunity to retain experts on the same topics, we agree that Muhm has failed to show that in all probability, Dr. Fiferman's testimony affected his substantial rights and the outcome of the trial. [11] See Reay, 2009 SD 10, ¶ 39, 762 N.W.2d at 368. Therefore, even if the circuit court erred in admitting the testimony, it was not reversible error.