Opinion ID: 1096207
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Whether the trial court erred in admitting experts' opinions on the veracity of the alleged victim's out-of-court statements.

Text: Baine complains that the court allowed expert witnesses Lilly and Sisemore not only to recount hearsay declarations, but to offer an expert opinion of their truthfulness. Baine asserts that this testimony denied him a fair trial. The record shows that the child-victim and a young eyewitness testified. Following Susie's testimony, several more experts testified, as previously described. To summarize: Social worker Haltom stated, All of the various indicators made me believe that she fit this sexual abuse syndrome and that she was, in fact, telling us the truth and that she had been sexually abused. (T. 350, 359). Baine did not object. (T. 350, 359-60). Psychologist Dr. Sisemore described how Susie's statements to him met the indicia of sexual abuse. (T. 431-35). On redirect examination, Sisemore stated that, were Susie's father's an alcoholic, Sisemore would not change his opinion of the reliability and credibility of Susie's declarations. Baine did not object. (T. 466). Psychometrist Lilly stated that, in her expert opinion based on a number of factors, Susie had been sexually abused. (T. 495). Lilly stated that Susie identified Red Baine as a person who had gotten her to trust him and tricked her. Baine did not object. (T. 498-99). Baine did not raise this issue in his motion for new trial. In this case, Baine failed to object at trial and failed to raise this issue in his motion for new trial. Thus, he did not preserve the issue for review by this Court. On this procedural ground, his allegation of error should fail.