Opinion ID: 2757926
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: analysis

Text: This case involves the situation where an expert directly or indirectly vouches for a witness’s credibility thereby commenting on a defendant’s guilt or innocence. In regards to this type of testimony, we have stated: Although we are committed to the liberal view on the admission of psychological evidence, we continue to hold expert testimony is not admissible merely to bolster credibility. Our system of justice vests the jury with the function of evaluating a witness’s credibility. The reason for not allowing this testimony is that a witness’s credibility is not a fact in issue subject to expert opinion. Such opinions not only replace the jury’s function in determining 5 credibility, but the jury can employ this type of testimony as a direct comment on defendant’s guilt or innocence. Moreover, when an expert comments, directly or indirectly, on a witness’s credibility, the expert is giving his or her scientific certainty stamp of approval on the testimony even though an expert cannot accurately opine when a witness is telling the truth. In our system of justice, it is the jury’s function to determine the credibility of a witness. An abuse of discretion occurs when a court allows such testimony. We again reaffirm that we are committed to the legal principle that an expert witness cannot give testimony that directly or indirectly comments on the child’s credibility. We recognize there is a very thin line between testimony that assists the jury in reaching its verdict and testimony that conveys to the jury that the child’s out-of-court statements and testimony are credible. State v. Dudley, ___ N.W.2d ___, ___ (Iowa 2014) (citations omitted) (internal quotation marks omitted). Applying these principles to the objectionable testimony, we find the expert witness’s testimony indirectly vouched for M.M.’s credibility thereby commenting on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. By opining M.M.’s demeanor was “completely consistent with a child who has been traumatized, particularly multiple times,” Kay was vouching for the credibility of the child. In other words, the expert witness is saying M.M.’s demeanor means the child suffered a sexual abuse trauma, therefore, the child must be telling the truth. See id. at ___. We allow an expert witness to testify generally that victims of child abuse display certain demeanors. Id. at ___; see also State v. Gettier, 438 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Iowa 1989). However, when an expert witness testifies a child’s demeanor or symptoms are consistent with child abuse, the expert crosses that very thin line and indirectly vouches for the victim’s credibility, thereby commenting on the defendant’s guilt or innocence. In its brief, the State claims Jaquez was not prejudiced by the admission of this testimony. We disagree. 6 M.M.’s testimony was not consistent with her out-of-court statements. She testified the abuse occurred at least once a week at trial, but told the forensic investigator it only happened three times. M.M. also testified the alleged abuse began when she was ten years old. However, her mother testified she was exhibiting sexual behavior towards her peers at the age of eight, inconsistent with when M.M. alleged the incidents began. Furthermore, M.M. testified while the alleged abuse was occurring her mother would be in the home cooking or showering in a bathroom with a shared wall to the room where the incidents were occurring. M.M. testified she would cry during the abuse and that she would bleed afterwards. This testimony is inconsistent with her mother’s testimony. Her mother testified she did not hear any crying or notice any abnormal bleeding and that she was unaware of any of the alleged incidents occurring in her house until the child made the accusation. Finally, the physical evidence did not support M.M.’s claim of child abuse. Dr. Hostetler testified there was nothing abnormal about the child’s physical examination other than a little scar tissue around her anal opening. Dr. Hostetler first testified the scar tissue, which was approximately a half a centimeter in length, “could be from anything from having repeated hard stools that passed through and caused fissures, or other kind of trauma like penetrating trauma.” However, M.M. had not made any allegations of anal contact until after the doctor’s examination. Additionally, because of the new allegation following Dr. Hostetler’s examination, the child was taken for a second forensic interview immediately following the exam. Dr. Hostetler testified in all the years she has been examining children at the Child Protection Center 7 she had never had a child do a forensic interview, then the exam, and then go back for a second interview. Moreover, the county attorney emphasized this wrongly admitted testimony in his presentation to the jury. In his opening statement, the county attorney warned the jury the child was not going to be emotional in her testimony. He was preparing the jury to ensure the jury did not see the child’s seemingly odd behavior of emotional apathy as a lack of credibility. He then elicited a direct answer from Kay regarding this exact behavior, ensuring he was not the only person telling the jury it was normal for M.M. to act in this manner. This testimony set the tone for the remainder of Kay’s testimony regarding what the child told her occurred.