Court Opinion

ID: 9551695
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 18:57:40.020096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:24:25.207186
License: Public Domain

YOUNG, J.,
dissenting.
I disagree with the resolution of defendant’s second assignment of error. The majority has held that the county juvenile counselor and the Childrens’ Services Division social worker may express their expert opinions that the witness-victim exhibited those qualities of behavior that makes her worthy of belief. The majority concludes that the witnesses “were explaining superficially bizarre behavior by identifying its emotional antecedents.” Whatever else that may mean, it means in the context of this case that an expert witness may give an opinion concerning the credibility of a witness. Credibility is not a subject for expert testimony.
In State v. Walgraeve, 243 Or 328, 331, 412 P2d 23, 413 P2d 609 (1966), quoting from Ballard v. Superior Court, 44 Cal Rptr 291 (1965), the court stated:
“ ‘* * * We are also concerned with the invasion of the jury’s province to evaluate the credibility of the witness by subjecting the witness’ testimony to attack by expert opinion based on an interview conducted outside the presence of the jury; the prospect of a parade of experts with conflicting opinions confusing rather than enlightening the jury; the delay of and detraction from the trial of the guilt or innocence of the accused by an excursion into the mental state of the witness; and the reluctance to report such crimes which the proposed rule would instill in the timid or those unwilling to bare their souls to the world. In any event such a fundamental change in policy should come from the Legislature which has the investigative machinery to fully evaluate the proposal, specify its limits and its mode of operation. The trial court properly denied the petitioner’s request in this respect.’ ”
The door is now open to permit an expert or other “skilled” witness to testify that it is typical behavior for a witness, a victim or a criminal defendant to tell the truth the first time and then later to recant. The question of the expert will be: “In your experience, is it typical behavior of *457one accused of a crime to change his story?” or “not to tell the truth?”
The majority relies on State v. Harwood, 45 Or App 931, 609 P2d 1312, rev den 289 Or 337 (1980). If Harwood is authority for the proposition that a witness’ testimony can be rehabilitated by expert opinion going to credibility, then Harwood is wrong and should be overruled.
I respectfully dissent.