Court Opinion

ID: 9440326
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 15:08:30.283545+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:31:46.079793
License: Public Domain

#30087-a-SPM
2023 S.D. 41

                            IN THE SUPREME COURT
                                    OF THE
                           STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA

                                   ****

STATE OF SOUTH DAKOTA,                      Plaintiff and Appellee,

      v.

VANDON PRETTY WEASEL,                       Defendant and Appellant.

                                   ****

                  APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF
                    THE FOURTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
                  LAWRENCE COUNTY, SOUTH DAKOTA
                                   ****

                  THE HONORABLE MICHELLE K. COMER
                               Judge

                                   ****

ELLERY GREY of
Grey & Eisenbraun Law
Rapid City, South Dakota                    Attorneys for defendant
                                            and appellant.

MARTY J. JACKLEY
Attorney General

ERIN E. HANDKE
Assistant Attorney General
Pierre, South Dakota                        Attorneys for plaintiff
                                            and appellee.

                                   ****

                                            ARGUED
                                            APRIL 26, 2023
                                            OPINION FILED 08/02/23
#30087

MYREN, Justice

[¶1.]        Vandon Pretty Weasel was convicted of ten counts of sexual contact

with a child under age sixteen and one count of first-degree rape. At his trial, the

State introduced evidence from Debra Hughes, a mental health practitioner, who

had served as the victim’s counselor. The State did not notify Pretty Weasel that

Hughes would give expert testimony. On appeal, Pretty Weasel alleges this failure

of notice was prejudicial and asserts that Hughes’ testimony improperly bolstered

the victim’s testimony. We affirm.

                         Factual and Procedural History

[¶2.]        Pretty Weasel and his wife, Jennean, were married in 2012. Five

children were living in their house at the time of the events that give rise to this

case. Jennean has two children with Pretty Weasel and two with Vincent Barrios.

A.D., the victim in this case, is the child of Jennean and Barrios and was twelve

years old at the time of trial. Also living with the family from the fall of 2015 until

the spring of 2020 was Pretty Weasel’s child from another relationship, K.P., who

was sixteen years old at the time of trial.

[¶3.]        On the morning of March 10, 2020, Jennean noticed that A.D. was

acting “very, very upset” and was refusing to go to school. Jennean thought

something was not right, so she took her daughter on a drive to talk. While on this

drive, A.D. told her mother that Pretty Weasel had been touching her

inappropriately and doing so for a very long time.

[¶4.]        Jennean went home and confronted her husband, who said he was

sorry. She told him he needed to leave, and he moved out of the house. The next

                                          -1-
#30087

day, Jennean filed a report with the police in Deadwood and met with Detective

Tom Derby, who set up a forensic interview for A.D.

[¶5.]          Brandi Tonkel, a forensic interviewer at the Children’s Home Child

Advocacy Center (CAC), conducted the interview. During the interview, A.D.

disclosed extensive sexual contact. She stated that Pretty Weasel had touched her

“all around down there” and that it occurred almost “every night.”

[¶6.]          After the forensic interview, Detective Derby, who had listened to the

interview, asked Jennean if she would agree to conduct a recorded phone call with

Pretty Weasel to see if they could obtain additional evidence to support A.D.’s

disclosures. Jennean agreed to do so. During this phone call, Pretty Weasel told

Jennean that he felt “so fricking guilty.” When Jennean asked him why he did

what he did to A.D., he said he thought she was Jennean. Jennean then asked, “[s]o

you touched her inappropriately?” to which Pretty Weasel responded, “I didn’t teach

her, I don’t want [A.D.] to be a liar and I didn’t teach her to be a liar. I mean if she

says then . . . I feel guilty.”

[¶7.]          Later in the same recorded conversation, Jennean asked when this had

started, and Pretty Weasel said that A.D. was the one who started it and that it had

started with belly rubs. He then said,

               And the first time went you know, didn’t notice but she kind of
               grabbed my hand higher, under her chest. And I was like whoa.
               I stopped. I thought--thought she was being curious. You know
               I just--I don’t know what--what to think. I didn’t know what to
               . . . And then she just pushed my hand lower a couple of times.

When pressed about how often this happened, Pretty Weasel said, “[l]ike once a

month. If that.” He said he did not remember how old A.D. was when it started

                                           -2-
#30087

and that it only happened when Jennean was gone. Pretty Weasel said he never

had sex with A.D. or put his fingers in her. He said he did not touch her but stated,

“[w]ell, she put my hand there.”

[¶8.]         A grand jury indicted Pretty Weasel on twelve counts of sexual contact

with a minor under age sixteen (two counts for each year from 2015-2020) and one

count of first-degree rape occurring sometime in 2020.

[¶9.]         Before trial, Pretty Weasel filed a motion to require the State to

provide a summary of any expert opinion it intended to use at trial pursuant to

SDCL 23A-13-4. Pretty Weasel also filed a motion for a subpoena duces tecum

seeking any counseling records involving A.D., followed by an in-camera review by

the court to determine relevancy. Without objection from the State, the circuit court

granted both motions. The court signed a subpoena duces tecum on February 11,

2022, directing Hughes to produce all counseling records for A.D. and provide them

to the court by February 14, 2022. Hughes was ill and unable to deliver the

documents by that date. Instead, both parties received the counseling records on

the first day of trial, after jury selection.

[¶10.]        Jennean was the State’s first witness, and she explained how A.D.

disclosed the abuse to her and how she reported it to law enforcement. She also

discussed the recorded phone call she conducted with Pretty Weasel under the

guidance of Detective Derby. A recording of the phone call and a transcript were

received into evidence, and the recording was played for the jury.

[¶11.]        On cross-examination, Jennean acknowledged that A.D. had

previously told her that K.P. had touched her inappropriately. Jennean explained

                                                -3-
#30087

that the family attended counseling with Hughes because of K.P.’s conduct, and

sometimes A.D. did not want to attend. The defense also asked Jennean if A.D. had

told Hughes that she did not like Pretty Weasel because he spanked her as a form of

discipline. Jennean acknowledged that A.D. may have said that to Hughes but later

testified that A.D. had not expressed to her personally that A.D. was upset about

being spanked.

[¶12.]       On redirect, Jennean testified that Hughes had diagnosed A.D. with

PTSD (post-traumatic stress disorder). The State then asked her whether Hughes

ever mentioned that A.D. was unable to tell the difference between what K.P. had

done to her and what Pretty Weasel had done. Pretty Weasel objected to the

question based on “improper 702, unnoticed 702,” and invading the province of the

jury, but the court overruled the objection. Jennean responded that she did not

recall what Hughes had told her.

[¶13.]       The State also asked Jennean if Hughes had reported to her that A.D.

wanted to dress in a particular way that would make her less attractive as a female.

The defense objected as “speculation and foundation and confrontation[,]” but the

objection was overruled. Jennean responded, “[A.D.] does not feel comfortable in

tight-fitting clothing. She wants to wear bigger clothing to cover up herself.” The

State later asked if A.D. exhibited any behavior where she tried to make herself

look unappealing. Jennean answered that A.D. had experienced trauma multiple

times from two different people and that she was very insecure, wanted to cut off

her hair, and would only wear loose and baggy clothing.

                                         -4-
#30087

[¶14.]       A.D. testified about telling her mother that Pretty Weasel had been

touching her. She said she told her mother Pretty Weasel had been touching her

but did not “tell her the detailed stuff[.]” A.D. testified that the touching had been

going on for a long time at a frequency that “felt like every day.” She thought the

touching started around age four with just “a backrub and stuff[,]” but then as she

got older, he touched her inappropriately “[d]own in the area” or “private area.” The

State clarified with her that she meant her vagina.

[¶15.]       When the abuse started, A.D. did not know it was wrong and thought

it was “a normal thing.” She realized it was wrong when she was around seven or

eight years old after watching some videos. She said it would happen a lot, “[l]ike

every day.” A.D. stated that Pretty Weasel only touched her with his hands, and he

mostly would rub her vagina but sometimes “put his fingers between it.”

Sometimes she would be sleeping and would awake to him touching her. A.D. said

after she realized it was wrong, it made her feel upset and gross when he would

touch her. She said she told Pretty Weasel that she did not like it, and there was

one time when she tried to stop him physically, she kicked her feet and elbowed

him, and he stopped. The touching would typically occur at night when her mother

was working.

[¶16.]       A.D. also discussed one incident where Pretty Weasel had asked her if

she was interested in touching a boy’s private part, but she said no. A.D. discussed

another time when she had wanted a stuffed animal, and he asked her, “[w]hat’s in

it for me?” She knew this meant that he wanted to touch her. He took her pants

and underwear off and her legs were over his shoulders. He put his head between

                                          -5-
#30087

her legs and kissed up and down her legs and then kissed her private area. After

this incident, he took her to the store and purchased the stuffed animal she wanted.

A.D. thought she was in about second grade when this happened.

[¶17.]      A.D. testified that Pretty Weasel told her that he was sorry for what he

had done to her and that he had apologized to her a lot of times. However, she did

not believe him because he kept doing these things to her. He had told her not to

tell anyone about what he was doing because it would destroy the family.

[¶18.]      A.D. also discussed the prior incidents where her stepbrother K.P.

touched her inappropriately on her private part. He had done this two times, and

she had told her mother about the touching. On cross-examination, she stated that

she was nine years old when he first touched her, and she knew it was wrong. A.D.

acknowledged that Pretty Weasel supported her going to counseling with Hughes

for the situation with K.P. and that he had taken her to counseling. Sometimes the

whole family would go to counseling together; other times they did individual

counseling. She said she talked to Hughes about K.P.’s conduct. A.D. also stated

that Pretty Weasel had asked her if she had told Hughes about what he had done to

her.

[¶19.]      A.D.’s biological father, Vincent Barrios, testified that in 2015, A.D.

was staying with him one weekend when she grabbed his penis and started

giggling. She said that Pretty Weasel let her touch him there and told Barrios that

Pretty Weasel touched her. She told Barrios that Pretty Weasel “itches” her and

“puts his hands down and plays with my panties.” Barrios said he called Jennean

and told her about this. Jennean talked with A.D., and A.D. told her she had lied.

                                         -6-
#30087

Barrios nonetheless reported the allegation to law enforcement. A forensic

interview was conducted, but A.D. did not disclose any sexual abuse, and no charges

were filed at the time.

[¶20.]       Detective Derby testified that he observed A.D.’s 2020 forensic

interview at the CAC. After the interview, he suggested to Jennean that they make

a recorded phone call with Pretty Weasel, and Jennean agreed to make the call. He

told her to be herself when talking to Pretty Weasel but wrote down some bullet

points to try to cover during the conversation. During Detective Derby’s testimony,

the court also admitted into evidence a message that A.D. received on her tablet

from Pretty Weasel saying, “I love you. I’m very sorry for everything.” Pretty

Weasel sent the message two days after A.D. disclosed the abuse to her mother, but

before Tonkel’s forensic interview.

[¶21.]       In her testimony, Tonkel, described the general process when

interviewing children. She explained that during her interview, A.D. disclosed

chronic incidences of sexual assault that had happened what felt like every day.

She stated that A.D. reported digital penetration as well as cunnilingus. The court

admitted the CAC interview and a transcript of the interview into evidence and

published the video for the jury, which substantially conformed to A.D.’s testimony

at trial.

[¶22.]       Tonkel further testified that she had conducted the forensic interview

with A.D. in 2015, but A.D. had not disclosed any sexual abuse by Pretty Weasel at

that time. Tonkel also discussed common characteristics in child sex abuse cases.

She explained that delayed disclosure and secrecy are common, especially when the

                                         -7-
#30087

perpetrator is a family member. She also explained that children that have

experienced sexual abuse are frequently able to provide details of conduct that

would ordinarily be beyond the years of such a child. Tonkel explained that

cunnilingus and digital penetration would typically involve knowledge beyond the

years of a ten-year-old child.

[¶23.]       Hughes was the last witness to testify. She stated she was a child

trauma therapist with an independent practice, a master’s degree in social work,

and a license to practice in South Dakota. She stated she uses “the modality of

trauma-focused child behavioral therapy[.]” She had conducted counseling with all

of the children in the Pretty Weasel family. Her work with them started when

Pretty Weasel contacted her after K.P. had touched A.D. in an inappropriately

sexual way. Hughes stated that she had conversations with A.D. about A.D.

wanting to be a boy because if she were a boy, she would not be touched. The

following exchange then occurred:

             State:        Did [A.D.] exhibit any signs that you worked with
                           her on as far as a lack of hygiene?
             Hughes:       Yes.
             State:        Okay. And what was that indicative of in your
                           profession?
             Defense:      I’m going to object. Unnoticed 702, improper 702.
             Court:        Overruled. You can answer.
             Hughes:       In [A.D.’s] personality and presenting herself
                           during our sessions, she felt the more unattractive
                           and ugly and hideous, if you will, her behaviors and
                           how she looked was, people would stay away from
                           her and she was safer.

[¶24.]       Shortly after this line of questioning, the State asked about diagnosing

A.D. with PTSD:

             State:        What was your diagnosis of [A.D.]?

                                         -8-
#30087

            Defense:     Objection. 702, State versus Buchholtz.
            Court:       Well, these records were subpoenaed, I believe, at
                         your request and they were given to both parties
                         and I’m going to allow it.
            State:       What was your diagnosis?
            Hughes:      Post-traumatic stress disorder.
            State:       And what does that mean?
            Hughes:      That is an event where an individual fears being
                         harmed or the harm of someone else and, as a
                         result of that fear, then they have different
                         behaviors and actions that continue to reproduce
                         fear and the need to protect.
            State:       Is she being treated for that now?
            Hughes:      Yes.
            State:       By you?
            Hughes:      Yes.
            State:       Did you see things that indicated to you that there
                         was something more going on here than what had
                         happened at the hands of [K.P.]?
            Defense:     Objection. Calls for speculation, improper 702,
                         unnoticed 702.
            Court:       Sustained.

[¶25.]      The defense conducted a brief cross-examination where Hughes was

asked if A.D. had told her she did not like Pretty Weasel because he spanked her.

Hughes responded that she did recall that. On redirect, the State asked Hughes if

there was any connection between the spanking and A.D.’s sexual assault

allegations. The defense objected based on “[i]mproper 702, beyond the scope,

unnoticed 702[,]” which the court overruled. Hughes responded,

            So children are very compartmentalized thinkers and in that
            minute, when you say, “Do you like him,” and if there is an
            event that has occurred where he’s punished her or spanked her,
            whatever, that is going to be what she speaks to. So it is not
            uncommon for her to say, “I don’t like him. He spanked me.” I
            do not see the two incidents connecting at all.

[¶26.]      The State rested, and Pretty Weasel did not present any witnesses.

The jury found Pretty Weasel not guilty on the two sexual contact charges

                                        -9-
#30087

stemming from acts in 2015 but found him guilty on the other ten counts of sexual

contact with a minor under the age of sixteen and the first-degree rape charge. The

court sentenced him to ten years in the penitentiary on each of the sexual contact

counts to be served concurrently and 25 years in the penitentiary on the first-degree

rape count to run consecutively to the sexual contact sentences.

[¶27.]       Pretty Weasel raises two issues on appeal concerning the admission of

unnoticed expert testimony and alleged improper bolstering of the victim’s

testimony by an expert witness.

                                Standard of Review

[¶28.]       “We review a [circuit] court’s decision to admit or deny an expert’s

testimony under the abuse of discretion standard.” State v. Janis, 2016 S.D. 43,

¶ 13, 880 N.W.2d 76, 80 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Johnson, 2015 S.D.

7, ¶ 30, 860 N.W.2d 235, 247). We similarly review evidentiary rulings under an

abuse of discretion using a two-step process. First, whether there was an abuse of

discretion. Second, whether the error was prejudicial. See State v. Hankins, 2022

S.D. 67, ¶ 20, 982 N.W.2d 21, 30. “An abuse of discretion is a discretion exercised to

an end or purpose not justified by, and clearly against, reason and evidence. It is a

fundamental error of judgment, a choice outside the range of permissible choices, a

decision, which, on full consideration, is arbitrary or unreasonable.” Id. ¶ 21

(internal quotations and citations omitted).

             1.     Whether Pretty Weasel preserved the expert witness
                    issues for appellate review.

[¶29.]       First, the State argues that Pretty Weasel waived the ability to

challenge any of Hughes’ testimony on appeal because he did not object when the
                                         -10-
#30087

State called Hughes as a witness, and when he did object to specific questions, he

“did not expand on why it was improper.”∗ “To preserve issues for appellate review

litigants must make known to the [circuit] courts the actions they seek to achieve or

object to the actions of the court, giving their reasons.” State v. Bryant, 2020 S.D.

49, ¶ 18, 948 N.W.2d 333, 338 (alteration in original) (quoting State v. Dufault, 2001

S.D. 66, ¶ 7, 628 N.W.2d 755, 757). This ensures “that the circuit court has an

opportunity to correct any error.” State v. Guzman, 2022 S.D. 70, ¶ 26, 982 N.W.2d

875, 886 (quoting State v. Divan, 2006 S.D. 105, ¶ 9, 724 N.W.2d 865, 869).

[¶30.]         The circuit court entered an order requiring the State to notify the

defense of any expert testimony it intended to present. The State was therefore

obligated to provide such notice before offering expert testimony. The State

solicited testimony from Hughes; Pretty Weasel objected because he believed it was

expert witness testimony. These objections sufficiently presented the issues to the

circuit court and preserved them for appellate review.

               2.     Whether Hughes testified as an expert.

[¶31.]         There are three pieces of testimony from Hughes that Pretty Weasel

argues qualified as expert testimony requiring advance notice under the circuit

court’s order and SDCL 23A-13-4: (1) the significance of the victim’s appearance and

lack of hygiene; (2) Hughes’ diagnosis of A.D. with PTSD; and (3) the connection or

lack thereof between A.D. being angry about being spanked by the defendant and

∗        “[W]aiver is different from forfeiture. Whereas forfeiture is the failure to
         make the timely assertion of a right, waiver is the intentional relinquishment
         or abandonment of a known right.” State v. Bryant, 2020 S.D. 49, ¶ 18 n.2,
         948 N.W.2d 333, 338 n.2 (quoting United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 733,
         113 S. Ct. 1770, 1777, 123 L. Ed. 2d 508 (1993)).
                                             -11-
#30087

A.D.’s allegations of sexual abuse. The State contends Hughes did not provide any

expert testimony.

[¶32.]       Lay witness testimony is governed by SDCL 19-19-701, which

provides:

             If a witness is not testifying as an expert, testimony in the form
             of an opinion is limited to one that is:
             (a)    Rationally based on the witness’s perception;
             (b)    Helpful to clearly understanding the witness’s testimony
                    or to determining a fact in issue; and
             (c)    Not based on scientific, technical, or other specialized
                    knowledge within the scope of § 19-19-702.

Opinion testimony from qualified experts is governed by SDCL 19-19-702.

[¶33.]       The State specifically asked Hughes what a lack of hygiene was

“indicative of in your profession?” (Emphasis added.) By invoking Hughes’

profession, the State sought her “scientific, technical, or other specialized

knowledge” based on her expertise as a child trauma therapist. Hughes would have

similarly been required to use such knowledge to diagnose A.D. with the mental

health disorder of PTSD. Hughes’ testimony on these two items constituted expert

testimony because it “was beyond the knowledge and experience of the average

layperson.” See State v. Andrews, 2001 S.D. 31, ¶ 18, 623 N.W.2d 78, 83.

[¶34.]       It is not as evident that Hughes’ testimony on redirect regarding the

lack of a connection between A.D.’s statement that she disliked Pretty Weasel

because he spanked her and A.D.’s allegations that Pretty Weasel sexually abused

her was expert testimony. Making a connection between statements about two

events does not necessarily require specialized knowledge; a layperson could make

such a connection. However, in her response to the question, Hughes described her

                                          -12-
#30087

professional understanding of a child’s thought process before stating that she did

not see the events as connected. Because Hughes’ testimony was based on

“scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge[,]” it constituted an expert

opinion. Her expert testimony was subject to the court’s pretrial orders requiring

timely expert opinion disclosure.

             3.     Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by
                    allowing the State to present unnoticed expert
                    testimony.

[¶35.]       Before trial, the circuit court ordered the State to provide Pretty

Weasel with advance notice of any expert witness and a summary of their expert

opinions. Although the State provided Pretty Weasel with a notice of intent to call

Tonkel as an expert in sexual assault, it provided no such notice as to Hughes.

[¶36.]       The circuit court granted a motion from the defense for a subpoena for

A.D.’s counseling records in July 2021. Because the production of the records was

delayed, the parties did not receive them until halfway through the first day of trial,

after jury selection but before opening statements.

[¶37.]       Nonetheless, in State v. Blem, this Court stated that “[o]nce an expert

opinion is known to the State and the State determines that it will solicit that

opinion in court, it must disclose the opinion to the defense regardless of the

number of days or hours before the witness is scheduled to testify.” 2000 S.D. 69,

¶ 40, 610 N.W.2d 803, 811. This holding was based on SDCL 23A-13-15, which

provides, “[i]f, prior to or during trial, a party discovers additional evidence or

material previously requested or ordered, which is subject to discovery or inspection

under §§ 23A-13-1 to 23A-13-14, inclusive, he shall promptly notify the other party

                                          -13-
#30087

or his attorney or the court of the existence of the additional evidence or material.”

(Emphasis added.) In Blem, the State asserted that it did not find out about an

expert’s conclusions until only a day before he testified. This Court held that the

State was still required to disclose the opinion to the defense despite the late notice

because “[p]arties are not granted immunity from discovery orders merely because

the trial has commenced.” Blem, 2000 S.D. 69, ¶ 40, 610 N.W.2d at 811.

[¶38.]       Here, the State did not provide the required expert witness notice to

Pretty Weasel because it was a last-minute decision to call Hughes as a witness

after receiving the counseling records that Pretty Weasel had subpoenaed. Still,

Blem establishes that the State must provide advance notice before calling an

expert witness. If the State had provided the required notice, Pretty Weasel could

have placed the issue before the circuit court for its consideration, outside the jury’s

presence, and before the State presented any expert witness testimony.

[¶39.]       Although Pretty Weasel has established that the circuit court abused

its discretion by allowing the State to present expert witness testimony in violation

of its pretrial order, he must also establish that the admission of that testimony

constituted prejudice. Our record review reveals that Hughes’ unnoticed testimony

did not affect the jury’s verdict. See Hankins, 2022 S.D. 67, ¶ 21, 982 N.W.2d at 30.

Earlier in the trial, defense counsel elicited testimony from Jennean during cross-

examination about the family attending counseling with Hughes and that A.D. told

Hughes that she did not like Pretty Weasel because he spanked her. On redirect

and without objection from the defense, the State elicited testimony from Jennean

that Hughes had diagnosed A.D. with PTSD. The State elicited further testimony

                                          -14-
#30087

from Jennean about A.D.’s efforts to alter her appearance. Hughes’ testimony about

these things was duplicative, but she also provided an expert witness explanation of

the significance of A.D.’s efforts to alter her appearance. Additionally, Hughes

testified that she did not see a connection between A.D.’s disclosures of sexual abuse

and any anger she may have expressed about Pretty Weasel spanking her.

[¶40.]       Despite this testimony from Hughes, Pretty Weasel was not precluded

from arguing to the jury that A.D. had a motive to fabricate, given her expressed

anger toward him. Pretty Weasel thoroughly presented this theme throughout his

closing argument, and neither party mentioned Hughes’ testimony in their closing

arguments. We are convinced that even if this expert testimony from Hughes had

been excluded, it would have had no effect on the verdict because of the

overwhelming nature of the other evidence presented to the jury. Therefore, Pretty

Weasel has not established any prejudice from the admission of this unnoticed

expert testimony.

             4.     Whether Hughes’ testimony constituted improper
                    bolstering of the victim’s testimony.

[¶41.]       Pretty Weasel next argues that Hughes’ expert opinions, including the

significance of the lack of hygiene, the PTSD diagnosis, and the lack of connection

between the spanking and allegations of abuse, all improperly bolstered A.D.’s

testimony. Pretty Weasel cites State v. Buchholtz in support of his argument. In

that case, the defendant was charged with first-degree rape and sexual contact. An

expert for the State testified that she had diagnosed the child with “child sexual

abuse.” 2013 S.D. 96, ¶ 9, 841 N.W.2d 449, 454. This Court found that such a

diagnosis essentially “put[ ] a certificate of veracity on the child’s testimony” and

                                          -15-
#30087

“t[old] the jury what to find.” Id. ¶ 28, 841 N.W.2d at 459. We stated that “[t]rial

courts must be careful to distinguish between expert opinion that helps the jury and

expert opinion that merely endorses a witness’s testimony. . . . [An expert’s] role is

not to tell the trier of fact what to decide, shifting responsibility from the decision

maker to the expert.” Id.

[¶42.]       In this case, Hughes did not discuss the cause of the PTSD, only that

she had diagnosed A.D. with the disorder and was treating her for it. Expert

testimony regarding sexual abuse is generally limited “to explaining the

characteristics of sexually abused children and comparing those characteristics with

the account and behavior of a particular child.” Id. ¶ 25, 841 N.W.2d at 457.

“Experts can fairly testify to what types of behaviors might indicate child sexual

abuse, give insights through expert evaluation of a witness, and educate jurors on

matters that will help them to assess credibility,” id. ¶ 31, 841 N.W.2d at 460, but

they “cannot pass judgment on a witness’s truthfulness in the form of a medical

opinion[,]” id. ¶ 28, 841 N.W.2d at 459.

[¶43.]       Hughes was not asked and did not testify that A.D. was diagnosed

with child sexual abuse. However, while discussing the PTSD diagnosis, the State

attempted to probe the cause of A.D.’s PTSD, inquiring of Hughes: “[d]id you see

things that indicated to you that there was something more going on here than

what had happened at the hands of [K.P.]?” However, defense counsel immediately

objected. The court sustained the objection and prevented Hughes from providing

the type of testimony that would have been an impermissible “direct[ ] comment on

the credibility of another witness by means of a diagnosis.” See id. ¶ 25, 841

                                           -16-
#30087

N.W.2d at 458. Hughes did not testify regarding a direct causal link between A.D.’s

PTSD and Pretty Weasel’s conduct. Additionally, the State did not discuss the

cause of A.D.’s PTSD or Hughes’ other expert opinions in its closing argument.

[¶44.]       As for Hughes’ testimony about A.D.’s appearance and lack of hygiene,

her observation that A.D. felt safer and believed people would stay away from her if

she were unattractive and ugly is not the type of expert testimony found

problematic in Buchholtz. While Hughes was not asked whether this behavior

would be consistent with that exhibited by children who had been sexually abused,

this was the obvious implication of her testimony. Buchholtz notes that this is the

type of expert testimony that is generally acceptable. See id. ¶ 25, 841 N.W.2d at

457.

[¶45.]       Finally, as we noted above, Hughes’ opinion about A.D.’s allegations of

abuse being unrelated to her statement about being spanked by Pretty Weasel was

elicited in response to questions defense counsel asked Hughes to support Pretty

Weasel’s theory of a possible motive for A.D. to lie. Hughes did not offer an opinion

about whether A.D. was truthful or whether the abuse had happened. Instead, it

was simply Hughes’ observation that she did not perceive any connection between

A.D.’s statement that she disliked Pretty Weasel because he spanked her and A.D.’s

sexual allegations against Pretty Weasel. She was not attesting to the validity of

A.D.’s statements regarding either topic. Therefore, Hughes’ testimony did not

improperly bolster A.D.’s testimony.

[¶46.]       We affirm.

                                         -17-
#30087

[¶47.]       JENSEN, Chief Justice, and KERN, SALTER, and DEVANEY,

Justices, concur.

                                   -18-