Opinion ID: 163124
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Detective Betz

Text: 27 Detective Betz was the lead detective in the case. The chief function of his trial testimony was to report what the Victim had said at a police station interview on February 18, 1992. But the prosecutor also attempted to use Betz to convey two propositions that would buttress the Victim's testimony—that the Victim's accounts of the incident were basically consistent and that Betz, an experienced officer, thought the charge was valid. Petitioner points to these latter two components of Betz's direct testimony in contending that Dr. Bebensee should have been permitted to testify about the Victim's inconsistencies and the inadequacy of the investigation. 28 As for Betz's testimony that the Victim's statements were basically consistent, the trial court permitted the testimony only until Petitioner objected. Betz's testimony was as follows: 29 Q (By [PROSECUTOR]) Now, I think you just testified you heard [the Victim] testify on March 4, 1992? 30 A Yes, ma'am. 31 Q You also heard him testify on June 12, 1992? 32 A Yes. 33 Q And you heard him testify yesterday? 34 A Yes, I did. 35 Q When you were interviewing [the Victim], as part of your training and experience, did you evaluate the statements that he was making to you? 36 A Yes, I did. 37 Q And did you further evaluate it when you heard him testify later at those other hearings? 38 A Yes. 39 Q And when he testified on March 4, 1992, was it consistent with what he told you? 40 A Yes, it was. 41 Q And on June 12, 1992, was that consistent with what he told you? 42 A Yes, ma'am. 43 Q And what he testified to yesterday, was that consistent with what he told you? 44 A I would have to say that everything was consistent as far as major — 45 [DEFENSE COUNSEL]: Your Honor, I object. That is a question of fact for this jury, not for this witness to determine. I object to this. I don't think it's a proper line of questioning at all. This is not an expert witness we have here and I don't think it's proper to be commenting on the evidence. 46 THE COURT: Yeah, the objection is sustained, not because it's an expert witness, but by reason and nature of the form of the question. 47 ROA, Vol. 10 at 211-12. Defense counsel did not move to strike the objectionable testimony. 48 Despite the sustained objection, defense counsel entered the identical territory on cross-examination. He obtained Betz's admission that while the major facts of the case were the same in all the Victim's accounts, there were differences in the details. Id. at 217. But after counsel inquired a bit further into Betz's opinions regarding the inconsistencies, the prosecutor objected. The court sustained the objection, reminding defense counsel that he had earlier objected to such opinion testimony. Although defense counsel asserted that the court, despite his earlier objection, had allowed the opinion to get in, the court denied counsel's request to have the record read back. In any event, defense counsel was able to alert the jury to inconsistencies in the Victim's statements by questioning Betz extensively about matters mentioned by the Victim on other occasions but not in the statement to Betz. 49 With respect to the prosecutor's attempt to use Betz to vouch for the charge, the prosecutor began the direct examination by eliciting from Betz that he was a 22-year veteran of the police force and had been a detective for four years, with training and experience in the investigation of crime and training in interviewing child witnesses. Id. at 199. Then, after Betz testified about his interview of the Victim and expressed his opinion concerning the consistency of the Victim's statements, the direct examination concluded with the following testimony: 50 Q [PROSECUTOR]: You're the person who actually is in charge of this case from the Aurora Police Department? 51 A Yes, ma'am. 52 Q It's important to you to do your job well? 53 A Yes ma'am. 54 Q You look at a case and evaluate it? 55 A I do. 56 Q Did you do that in this case? 57 A I did. 58 Q And would you file a case if you hadn't evaluated it properly? A No, I would not. 59 Id. at 212. 60 Rather than raising objections to this testimony, defense counsel pursued on cross-examination Betz's expertise and the quality of his investigation. Under defense counsel's questioning, Betz acknowledged that (1) his training in investigating allegations of child sexual abuse consisted of only his attendance at some seminars or workshops about which he could not supply any details, id. at 237; (2) he did not make a verbatim record of his interview with the Victim, but recorded it in his own words, despite his knowledge of the importance of precision; (3) he did not investigate the Victim's motives to fabricate the assault, although he was aware that children do make false allegations; (4) before filing charges he did not interview the 13-year-old girl whom the Victim claimed had also been molested, and he later interviewed her only after being instructed to do so by the district attorney; (5) he did not interview any other witnesses, including the Victim's mother, his neighbors, his teachers, or his babysitters; (6) he did not contact (or obtain the Victim's family records from) the Department of Social Services or try to determine whether the Victim had been the subject of parental neglect; (7) he did not attempt to retrieve the body of the kitten to determine how it had been killed; and (8) in fact he conducted no investigation before filing charges, other than reading the police reports and interviewing the Victim. 61 On the other hand, the court sustained the prosecutor's relevance objections to several questions which, rather than focusing on what Betz had done (or omitted) in this case, related to sexual assault charges in general: (1) Can you tell us from your training and experience what are some of the dangers and pitfalls that confront an investigator in a sexual assault on a child case?, id. at 240; (2) In your training, are you taught about what possible motives for false reporting should be — you should be on the lookout for?, id. at 241; (3) And are you also aware that recanting is not typical in these types of cases where false reports are made?, id. at 240. When defense counsel argued that he was just attempting to inquire into Betz's investigation and his training and skills, the court responded in a way that suggested the defense could use Dr. Bebensee to criticize the investigation: 62 [W]hat [Betz] did is relevant. What he didn't do or might have done is not relevant for you. You can bring an expert in and the expert can be critical of what they did do. And the expert, assuming that one comes in, can say what they did fails to meet a standard. And I don't have any problem with that concept, but to sit here and probe the area you're doing through this witness, I sustain the objection. 63 Id. at 242. 64 The court also sustained objections to a question asking whether at the time of the investigation Betz had any literature providing a checklist for conducting the investigation, as well as questions about his omissions in the investigation, such as, Did you do any investigation in this case to determine whether or not [the Victim] had any prior sexual experience? and Did you investigate whether there was any pornography[?] Id. at 247, 249. 65 During his cross-examination concerning the conduct of the investigation, defense counsel asked Betz how he determined whether an accusation was valid. Betz replied: I ... weighed [the Victim's] credibility, weighed what he had to say, and evaluated that through my experience in determining whether I believed his credibility and believed what he said to me and if it was plausible. Id. at 245-46. 66 The prosecutor followed up on redirect. Betz essentially repeated what he had said on cross-examination, stating that in deciding whether to file a case, he weighs the credibility of the victim ... and his or her statements to me. Id. at 272-73. Defense counsel objected, but the trial court ruled that the door had been opened on cross-examination.