Court Opinion

ID: 9663337
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 23:35:33.236882+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:14:48.031810
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(dissenting).
Spaans was tried, before a jury, on four counts. His Honor dismissed Count III and IV, both counts accusing Spaans with Sexual Contact with a Child Under Sixteen in violation of SDCL 22-22-7. On the remaining two counts, the jury found Spaans not guilty on Count I — Rape in violation of SDCL 22-22-1(4) and guilty on Count II— Sexual Contact with a Child Under Sixteen in violation of SDCL 22-22-7. Spaans was sentenced to serve four years and six months in the South Dakota State Penitentiary.
Without, again, regaling the reader with my extensive writings on this subject, I call the reader’s attention to my special concurrence in State v. Hallman, 391 N.W.2d 191, 196-7 (S.D.1986) for my concern that incest or rape trauma victims cannot be singled out, specifically, in a given factual scenario, by professional experts as having had a crime perpetrated upon them; and, also, my dissent in State v. Bachman, 446 N.W.2d 271 (S.D.1989), for my general academic viewpoint, spiced with numerous authorities on rape trauma syndrome, that it is improper to permit an expert to suggest that a complainant exhibits rape trauma syndrome, (or having been sexually contacted) because there is a certain aura of special reliability and trustworthiness implicit in the experts’ testimony (hearsay evidence vaulted over solid evidence); and, lastly, my dissent in McCafferty v. Solem, 449 N.W.2d 590 (S.D.1989), wherein I attempted to pinpoint the difference in behavioral science expert testimony, bearing on the credibility of sexually abused children. One concept pertains to approval or disapproval of expert testimony on credibility of a victim. Eleven authorities did I root out which decries a stamp of approval of expert testimony on credibility. McCafferty. In McCafferty, at 596, I pointed out that some courts refuse to permit behavioral science experts to offer opinions on credibility of sexually abused children as a class. Justice Sabers’ writing, now before us, is extremely brief on Issue 2 and cites three other cases I have mentioned above. So — we apply these facts to the holdings in those three cases, via the majority opinion by relying on majority opinions which I have hitherto been at odds. Therefore, I am distressed at voting against an affirmance on a child molestation conviction but must seek not a temporary consequence; rather, I must try to serve truth, as I dare to see it. Hearsay is a poor measure of truth. Under these circumstances, truth is hung on the scaffold. Why?
True, expert Curran did not render an opinion concerning the reliability of the victim. True, expert Curran testified on a general description of the traits and characteristics of sexually abused children. True, however, that expert Curran testified about specific sexual acts which these two young children told her about. Then, after the children told their tale, expert Curran would ask: “Is this a truth or a lie?” *600Expert Curran testified that the children would answer “the truth.” She was permitted to testify as to the characteristics of children who are sexually abused. Linking these together, we have a classic case of trial by expert and a substitution of credibility values: A jury is overwhelmed with the expert’s opinion who becomes the fact finder. An invasion, within the province of the jury, occurs. Expert Curran’s purpose is simple: To enhance the credibility of the witness. These social experts are taking over the role of the ancient and hallowed function — and the constitutional right to be adjudged guilty or innocent by a jury which properly determines the facts and credibility of witnesses. I view it as a terribly dangerous procedure to the Bill of Rights. United States v. Azure, 801 F.2d 336 (8th Cir.1986); State v. Lindsey, 149 Ariz. 472, 720 P.2d 73 (1986).