Opinion ID: 1685999
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: opinion testimony by the doctor

Text: On July 20, 1990, A.C. was taken to a hospital emergency room where Dr. Pope examined her. In obtaining a medical history from A.C., Dr. Pope asked A.C. the cause of any injury and symptoms thereof. A.C. told Dr. Pope that appellant had put his in mine and had me suck on it. Dr. Pope took this to mean that appellant had placed his penis in A.C.'s vagina. Over a continuing defense objection, Dr. Pope testified that what appellant had done was consistent with a small tear Dr. Pope had observed in A.C.'s hymenal ring. Based in part on the medical history received, Dr. Pope diagnosed the injury as being the result of such activity. In Brown v. Commonwealth, Ky., 812 S.W.2d 502 (1991), the appellant was accused of first degree rape and incest of his daughter when she was age ten. The examining physician testified, based in part on case history, that a healed cervical tear on the alleged victim was more likely in a ten year old as opposed to a fourteen year old. Brown at 504. Although the physician did not state specifically what caused the tear, we found that this statement inferred that the injury is consistent with the offense charged: sexual abuse that occurred when the victim was ten years old. Id. This Court held that the doctor's testimony, based on the history, amounted to opinion testimony as to the ultimate issue and as such was reversible error. The case before us today presents a much more prejudicial statement by the examining physician than was found in Brown . Testimony that the injury to A.C.'s hymenal ring was consistent with the charges against appellant requires no inference to conclude that the injury is consistent with the offense charged. It is patently clear that this was what Dr. Pope meant. In admitting this testimony, the trial court distinguished Brown by noting that in Brown the physician testified based on the alleged victim's case history; whereas, in appellant's case, the doctor's testimony was based on observations. However, Brown is indistinguishable from the present case. In both cases the physician obtained a medical history from the alleged victim and subsequently examined the alleged victim. In both cases the physician concluded that the physical injury was consistent with what the physician had been told in the medical history. Dr. Pope clearly gave an opinion that appellant was guilty of rape. This opinion testimony was highly prejudicial and constitutes reversible error.