Court Opinion

ID: 9557857
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 16:59:04.960275+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:36.105499
License: Public Domain

LANDAU, J.,
concurring.
At issue in this case is whether Dr. Lorenz’s diagnosis that the victims had been sexually abused is admissible under State v. Brown, 297 Or 404, 687 P2d 751 (1984), and its progeny. The majority concludes that the diagnosis is admissible because it is not “scientific evidence” and therefore is not even subject to the requirements of Brown. I agree with the majority’s conclusion, but not with its reasoning. In my *406view, Brown does apply; Lorenz’s diagnosis is precisely the sort of evidence that is subject to the gatekeeping review of the courts. I would conclude, however, that the evidentiary requirements of Brown have been satisfied in this case and that, for that reason, Lorenz’s testimony is admissible.
I begin with whether Brown applies. The majority concludes that Brown applies only to testimony that “draw[s] its convincing force from generalizations based on empirical data or an empirical study.” 158 Or App at 405. According to the majority, in the context of testimony about patterns of behavior, only “syndrome” or “profile” evidence qualifies as “scientific” evidence that is subject to Brown. Because, in the majority’s view, Lorenz’s diagnosis was based on her “education, training and experience after personally examining the victims,” and because her testimony cannot properly be regarded as “syndrome” or “profile” evidence, Brown does not apply. 158 Or App at 405. I think the majority misapprehends the scope of Brown.
In Brown, the Supreme Court held that before “scientific” evidence may be admitted, the trial court must
“identify and evaluate the probative value of the [proffered scientific] evidence, consider how [that evidence] might impair rather than help the factfinder, and decide whether truthfinding is better served by exclusion or admission.”
Brown, 297 Or at 409. The court did not define precisely what is “scientific” evidence and, hence, is subject to that foundational inquiry. The Supreme Court addressed that problem in State v. O’Key, 321 Or 285, 291-93, 899 P2d 663 (1995), explaining:
“This court’s definition of ‘scientific’ evidence in Brown recognizes that it is difficult to set a more definitive boundary between ‘scientific’ evidence and ‘technical or other specialized knowledge,’ which are the other types of evidence requiring expert proof. As Professors Mueller and Kirkpatrick state:
“ ‘Most expert testimony rests at least partly on science. In many areas the scientific underpinning is well established and the criteria set out in [Rules] 702 and 703 work well. The requirements are essentially three: The witness must qualify as an expert, his testimony *407must be helpful ([Rule] 702), and he must have an adequate basis for what he says ([Rule] 703). Under these criteria an enormous amount of conventional scientific evidence is routinely admitted.’ Christopher B. Mueller & Laird C. Kirkpatrick, Modern Evidence § 7.8, 990 (1995).
“Evidence perceived by lay jurors to be scientific in nature possesses an unusually high degree of persuasive power. The function of the court is to ensure that the persuasive appeal is legitimate. The value of proffered expert scientific testimony critically depends on the scientific validity of the general propositions utilized by the expert. * * * Propositions that a court finds possess significantly increased potential to influence the trier of fact as scientific assertions, therefore, should be supported by the appropriate scientific validation. * * *
“* * * * *
“We need not attempt precisely to distinguish ‘scientific’ from other types of expert testimony under the Oregon Evidence Code. For now, we hold that, in the absence of a clear case, a case for judicial notice, or a case of prima facie legislative recognition, trial courts have an obligation to ensure that proffered expert scientific testimony that a court finds possesses significantly increased potential to influence the trier of fact as ‘scientific’ assertions is scientifically valid.”
(Footnotes omitted.) Thus, contrary to the majority’s characterization of the law, whether proffered scientific testimony relies on a particular type of data, methodology, or technique is beside the point. And whether it can be given a particular label — “syndrome,” “profile,” or otherwise — is irrelevant. Under Brown and O’Key, the determinative consideration is whether the testimony is such that juries likely will perceive it to have a basis in science and thereby regard it as having correspondingly enhanced persuasive force. Id.
Our own previous cases applying Brown bear out the point. In State v. St. Hilaire, 97 Or App 108,113, 775 P2d 876 (1989), for example, the expert witness testified about the “typical behavior of sexually abused children,” based on his observations in interviews of a number of victims. No particular methodology, technique, or formula was implicated. The *408expert testified about what he had observed in light of his training and experience. We nevertheless held that Brown applied.
Similarly, in State v. Lawson, 127 Or App 392, 395, 872 P2d 986 (1994), we held that expert testimony concerning the extent to which defendant’s behavior was consistent with traits the expert had observed in many other child abusers was scientific evidence that implicated the requirements of Brown. In that case, we emphasized that the substance of the testimony, not the particular label appended to it, controls:
“Whether it is labeled a ‘syndrome’ or a ‘profile,’ the type of evidence proffered * * * in this case involves comparing an individual’s behavior with the behavior of others in similar circumstances who have been studied in the past.”

Id.

In my view, Lorenz’s testimony in this case is not materially different from the testimony at issue in both St. Hilaire and Lawson. Lorenz compared the behavior of the victims in this case with the behaviors of other victims who had been studied in the past to arrive at her diagnoses. That is precisely the sort of testimony that we previously have held implicates the foundational requirements ofBrown. It should not be treated differently in this case.
I turn, then, to the requirements of Brown. In Brown, the Supreme Court explained that, in evaluating the foundation for the admissibility of scientific evidence, trial courts must consider the following factors:
“(1) The technique’s general acceptance in the field;
“(2) The expert’s qualifications and stature;
“(3) The use which has been made of the technique;
“(4) The potential rate of error;
“(5) The existence of specialized literature;
“(6) The novelty of the invention; and
“(7) The extent to which the technique relies on the subjective interpretation of the expert.”
*409297 Or at 417. The factors are designed to serve as a guide in evaluating the evidence. Id. They are not, however, a checklist; not all factors must be satisfied for the evidence to be admissible. Id. See also St. Hilaire, 97 Or App at 112 (“The factors are guidelines, not a checklist.”).
In this case, there is no question but that a diagnosis of child abuse is generally accepted in the field, that Lorenz was qualified to give testimony about that diagnosis, that there is a considerable body of specialized literature on the subject, and that the diagnosis is not a novel “invention.” Defendant’s principal objections are that the diagnosis of child abuse is not subject to a known error rate and is inherently subjective in nature. Both objections, however, may be stated of many recognized medical diagnoses. Moreover, as the cases make clear, scientific evidence is not rendered inadmissible merely because it cannot satisfy one or more of the factors mentioned in Brown.
In short, I would conclude, therefore, that Lorenz’s testimony is “scientific” evidence subject to the foundational requirements of Brown, but I also would hold that those foundational requirements were satisfied in this case. I therefore concur in the result of the majority’s decision, but not in its rationale.
Deits, C. J., and Armstrong and Wollheim, JJ., join in this concurring opinion.