Opinion ID: 1642621
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children.

Text: Spaans claims the trial court erred in allowing Curran to testify regarding the symptoms of children that have been sexually abused. A trial court's decision regarding the qualification of experts and the admission of their testimony will only be reversed upon a showing of an abuse of discretion. State v. Bachman, 446 N.W.2d 271 (S.D.1989). Bachman dealt with this issue and held that the trial court did not err in admitting expert testimony concerning the traits and characteristics typically found in sexually abused children. Id. at 276. Although Justice Henderson and I dissented in Bachman, the expert testimony in this case is sufficiently different to warrant its admission. Curran only briefly discussed the general characteristics of sexually abused children. She did this at the end of her testimony and acknowledged on cross-examination that a divorce could produce the same symptoms or characteristics. The jury was left to draw its own conclusions about whether the behavior of the children fit these characteristics, and, if so, whether it was caused by divorce or sexual abuse. Unlike the situations in Bachman, State v. Logue, 372 N.W.2d 151 (S.D.1985), or McCafferty v. Solem, 449 N.W.2d 590, 598 (S.D.1989), the testimony remained general and did not go directly to the ultimate issue of credibility. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it allowed the expert testimony in this case. WUEST, C.J., and MORGAN and MILLER, JJ., concur. HENDERSON, J., dissents.