Court Opinion

ID: 9641834
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 17:41:23.0762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:40.197685
License: Public Domain

JUDGMENT
This is an appeal from an order entered after remand proceedings. We earlier ordered those proceedings, with discretion whether to hold an evidentiary hearing,1 for clarification because “we cannot be certain that the record otherwise supports the ruling as a matter of law.” Ibn-Tamas v. United States, 407 A.2d 626, 640 n. 29 (D.C. *8941979). The trial court has stated on remand that it did consider the relevant factors as outlined by this court in its original ruling. It concluded, inter alia, “that defendant failed to establish a general acceptance by the expert’s colleagues of the methodology used in the expert’s study of ‘battered women.’-” Since the expert’s testimony could have been excluded “for failure to meet either the second or third elements of the test,” id. at 635, and the trial court did exclude that testimony on one such basis, we are left with deciding whether “the evidence, despite our inability to observe the witness, permits but one interpretation.” Id. at 636 n. 17. As the court said in its earlier decision in this case, our scope of review on this issue is “narrow” to the point where manifest error must appear for reversal. Id. at 632. We hold that the trial judge was not compelled, as a matter of law, to admit the evidence. He had discretion whether to admit it and “this court should not substitute its judgment in [such] a discretionary ruling .... ” Id. at 636 n. 17.
Accordingly, the order appealed from is

Affirmed.

. We find no abuse of discretion in proceeding without a hearing and on submission of memo-randa.