Opinion ID: 901812
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 8

Heading: Disclosure of Expert Witness' Underlying Data

Text: [¶ 13.] Dr. Kauffman, a forensic psychologist, testified at the revocation hearing that it was his opinion that Martin was likely to reoffend. Kauffman based his opinion, in part, on the Abel Assessment, a report created from Martin's responses to a series of questions administered by a third person. Martin claims he was unable to effectively cross-examine Kauffman without the raw data of the assessment, which consisted of questions and Martin's responses. Kauffman testified that the raw data formed the basis of his opinions expressed in the Abel Assessment report. Martin asserts that Kauffman's testimony should be struck from the record because without the raw data, he could not effectively cross-examine Kauffman. [3] The Board's attorney offered to provide the raw data to a qualified psychologist of Martin's choice. Martin, however, effectively ignored this offer and reasserted that the raw data must be disclosed. Given the circumstances, the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying Martin's request. Kauffman testified about the proprietary and ethical barriers to releasing the raw data directly to Martin. Under the specific facts of this case, Martin's interest in obtaining this information was not compelling enough to justify its production. Additionally, Martin's counsel was able to effectively cross-examine Kauffman about his opinion without the underlying raw data. Even so, without Kauffman's testimony, more than a sufficient basis existed for the Board to revoke his parole. See supra ¶ 12. [¶ 14.] We affirm on all issues. [¶ 15.] GILBERTSON, Chief Justice, and KONENKAMP and ZINTER, Justices, and SABERS, Retired Justice, concur. [¶ 16.] SABERS, Retired Justice, sitting for SEVERSON, Justice, disqualified.