Court Opinion

ID: 9787239
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-31 00:13:38.764657+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:36:44.844724
License: Public Domain

Judge Pro Tem SCHWARTZMAN
(following his retirement) Specially Concurring.
I write separately to further explicate several areas of legal concern:
1.The late disclosure of John Siegel as a witness, on the very day of trial, is an issue of no small concern. This case conjures up shades of State v. Byington, 132 Idaho 597, 977 P.2d 211 (Ct.App.1998); affirmed on review, 132 Idaho 589, 977 P.2d 203 (1999). See respective dissents of Judge Schwartz-man and Justice Schroeder. I am constrained, however, to concur with the majority opinion here that no prejudice was shown by the late disclosure, as the evidence was relatively straightforward, succinct, and confined to a recent phone call in which the defendant himself participated. Nevertheless, trial courts should be Argus-eyed in assuring reasonable diligence and compliance with discovery mandates so that the exception does not swallow up the rule.
2. During cross-examination, Siegel was interrogated as to whether he had the most to lose or gain in this case and whether he would admit to being the most biased person the jury would hear. A simple objection to this line of inquiry as argumentative rhetoric should have been sustained.1 Nothing in the opinion should be read as condoning this type of questioning.
3. The district court ruled that the substance of Ferguson’s report, together with his expert testimony related thereto, was inadmissible due to a lack of adequate foundation to show that the SAI was an accurate and reliable methodology to differentiate between persons who will sexually offend and those who will not. Based upon a reading of State v. Konechny, 134 Idaho 410, 3 P.3d 535 (Ct.App.2000) and State v. Parkinson, 128 Idaho 29, 909 P.2d 647 (Ct.App.1996), this ruling is eminently correct and I would affirm on this basis as well.
James Ferguson is an evaluator/counselor with experience in diagnosing and treating people with paraphilia (e.g., pedophilia).2 Ferguson would testify about a diagnostic tool called the Sexual Adjustment Inventory (SAI) and opine, based on Siegel’s performance in the test and interviews with him, that Siegel was a low risk to commit sexual offenses such as those charged. The state objected that the expert’s opinion and the SAI were inadmissible character evidence, 1.e., evidence of non-criminal propensity offered to prove that Siegel acted in accord with that propensity rather than as charged. The state further argued that the SAI did *547not meet the standards for admitting scientific or technical evidence by an expert.
The SAI consists of a battery of multiple choice and true-false questions. The subject’s responses are entered into a computer, which analyzes and scores the test. The test has thirteen scales corresponding to characteristics that are common to sex offenders. The test also attempts to score general truthfulness and honesty regarding sexual questions. The test is accompanied by interviews of the subject. Ferguson’s testimony compared the SAI to the more commonly used Minnesota Multiphasic Personality Inventory (MMPI). He stated that the SAI has been tested and referenced to the MMPI and that the SAI uses the same basic methodology as the MMPI.
The only other evidence offered in support of the SAI was a document entitled “Sexual Adjustment Inventory (SAI): Inventory of Scientific Findings” (SAI Findings), which was produced by the company that created and markets the test, Risk and Needs Assessment, Inc. (RNA, Inc.). The SAI Findings describe each of the scales and what they test for. Although the SAI Findings are written in technical terms, the document is essentially a marketing tool promoting the value of the test and its superiority to other sexual evaluation tests. The SAI Findings contain a number of claims regarding the statistical accuracy of the test. Most are based on the results of the test when given to known sex offenders; one of the tests compared the results when given to known sex offenders to results obtained from non-offenders. It appears that all the tests discussed in the SAI Findings were conducted by RNA, Inc. There is little in the evidence to explain the significance of the statistics in the SAI Findings or how they were calculated.
The state argued that Siegel failed to lay any foundation showing that the SAI was a scientifically valid way of reliably showing whether an individual committed a particular sexually predatory act. The state further asserted that the studies Siegel relied upon did not show that the SAI was a reliable tool. There was no evidence of independent testing; all testing presented by Siegel was done by RNA, Inc. There was also no indication that any of those studies had been reproduced independently. Finally, even if the SAI were sufficiently reliable to be admissible, the state argued that it did not show whether the individual tested actually did or did not commit a particular sexually predatory act.
The legal standard for the admission of expert testimony is found in I.R.E. 702, which states:
If scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, may testify thereto in the form of an opinion or otherwise.
The determination of whether expert testimony will assist the trier of fact turns on whether it is based on information, theory or methodology that have sufficient indicia of reliability. Konechny, 134 Idaho at 417, 3 P.3d at 542. “[T]he key to admission of [an expert’s] opinion is the validity of the expert’s reasoning and methodology.... The court’s function is to distinguish scientifically sound reasoning from that of the self-validating expert, who uses scientific terminology to present unsubstantiated personal beliefs.” Id. (quoting Ryan v. Beisner, 123 Idaho 42, 46, 844 P.2d 24, 28 (Ct.App.1992)).
This Court previously considered evidence that a defendant did not fit the psychological profile of a sexual offender in State v. Parkinson, supra. We held that a sufficient foundation for the evidence had not been laid, relying in part on the analysis employed in Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 509 U.S. 579, 113 S.Ct. 2786, 125 L.Ed.2d 469 (1993).
The Parkinson Court recited the Daubert factors for consideration of expert testimony:
These factors include whether the theory or technique in question can be tested, whether it has been subjected to peer review and publication, its known or potential error rate, the existence and maintenance of standards governing its use, and whether it has attracted widespread accep*548tance within a relevant scientific community-
Parkinson, 128 Idaho at 34, 909 P.2d at 652. The Court also listed several other factors identified by various courts:
(1) the presence of safeguards in the technique; (2) analogy to other scientific techniques whose results are admissible; (3) the nature and breadth of inferences drawn; (4) the extent to which the basic data are verifiable by the court and jury; (5) availability of other experts to test and evaluate the technique; (6) the probative significance of the evidence in the circumstances of the case.
Id. In reaching its holding, the Court pointed out that the expert did not:
describe the personality or psychological characteristics that made up the profile; describe the methodology by which the profile was derived; state whether or how the technique had been tested; describe the profile’s level of accuracy in distinguishing between offenders and non-offenders; or state whether the profile and the assessment technique utilized by [the expert witness] had attracted widespread acceptance within the psychological community.
Id. at 35, 909 P.2d at 653.
Siegel has made at best a minimal showing that the SAI is based on a sound methodology and is an effective tool for showing whether someone is likely to have committed a sexual offense. Ferguson’s testimony was conclusory and he could cite only to literature from the company that makes and markets the test to support his claims. All but one of the studies recited in the SAI Findings dealt with the independence of the scores on the various scales rather than on the ability of the test to differentiate between sexual predators and normal individuals. Only one test attempted to compare test results from known sex offenders with those from the general population. Although the SAI Findings claimed to have found a significant difference in scores, the value of this study is clouded by unexplained statistical jargon. Finally, I reiterate, as did the Court in Parkinson, “that the introduction of expert testimony regarding whether a defendant fits an alleged sexual offender profile has been almost universally rejected in other jurisdictions.” 128 Idaho at 33, 909 P.2d at 651 (citations omitted).
Accordingly, I would further hold that the district court committed no error in'excluding Ferguson’s testimony.

. An astute witness might respond, in a similar caustic vein, as follows: "With the possible exception of yourself, Mr. Prosecutor, that might be true.” Indeed, the deputy prosecutor involved here has built up a less-than-felicitous appellate track record with this Court. See, e.g., State v. Lovelass, 133 Idaho 160, 983 P.2d 233 (Ct.App.1999); State v. Vandenacre, 131 Idaho 507, 960 P.2d 190 (Ct.App.1998); State v. Brown, 131 Idaho 61, 951 P.2d 1288 (Ct.App.1998).

. Mr. Ferguson's educational background includes a bachelor’s degree in psychology-sociology-religion, a master’s degree in education/counseling, and he is a certified clinical criminal justice specialist in the area of drugs, alcohol and domestic violence.