Court Opinion

ID: 9630454
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 10:11:28.047762+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:39:03.463507
License: Public Domain

HARTZ, Judge (specially concurring). I concur in the opinion of the court. In particular, I agree that Ms. Kiddney had sufficient experience to testify as an expert concerning whether the child's conduct was consistent with that observed in victims of sexual abuse. I write separately, however, to emphasize that the opinion does not purport to decide a challenging evidentiary issue that will probably arise in other prosecutions for sexual abuse of children. The issue concerns the relevance of some of Ms. Kiddney’s testimony and the propriety of some of the prosecutor’s comments on that testimony. Because defense counsel failed to raise a sufficiently specific objection (perhaps for tactical reasons), the state had no opportunity to attempt to explain or remedy the possible defect. Therefore, we need not rule on this evidentiary question. Nevertheless, the topic merits discussion to prevent a misreading of our decision in this case. To clarify the issue in question, it helps to understand in what way Ms. Kiddney’s testimony was certainly relevant. In the opening statement for defendant, counsel contended that among the reasons the jury should doubt the child’s testimony were her failure to report the alleged abuse to anyone in authority for fifteen months, her expression of a desire to return to her father in Albuquerque one month after the alleged abuse, and her having given different versions of the abuse story. Ms. Kiddney’s experience with child victims of sexual abuse would qualify her to testify that such behavior, which would appear to most lay persons as being inconsistent with the child’s having been a victim of sexual abuse, is common among such victims. Such “explanatory” testimony is appropriate. As Justice Roberts explained in her concurrence in State v. Middleton, 294 Or. 427, 440-41, 657 P.2d 1215, 1222 (1983): While jurors may be capable of personalizing the emotions of victims of physical assault generally, and of assessing witness credibility accordingly, tensions unique to the trauma experienced by a child sexually abused by a family member have remained largely unknown to the public. As the expert’s testimony demonstrates the routine indicia of witness reliability — consistency, willingness to aid the prosecution, straightforward rendition of the facts — may, for good reason, be lacking. As a result jurors may impose standards of normalcy on child victim/witnesses who consistently respond in distinctly abnormal fashion. Because the experts in this case have demonstrated that significant numbers of sexually abused children respond to the assault with the same patterns of “superficially bizarre behavior,” * * * the testimony was properly admitted. [Footnote omitted.] Accord State v. Moran, 151 Ariz. 378, 381, 728 P.2d 248, 251 (1986). The state, however, may have had addi- . tional purposes for offering Ms. Kiddney’s testimony — purposes that are, at the least, not clearly proper. Portions of the prosecutor’s examination of Ms. Kiddney and of his final argument suggest that the state wished the jury to conclude from the expert’s testimony that the child was a victim of sexual abuse because she fit the profile of such victims. In other words, the state wanted the jury, on the basis of Ms. Kiddney’s testimony, to “diagnose” the child as a victim of sexual ábuse. The question thus arises as to whether Ms. Kiddney’s testimony was admissible for that purpose. If it was not, then her testimony would be inadmissible, except for those portions that were relevant for another purpose (such as the explanatory purpose discussed above). Central to the analysis is the failure of Ms. Kiddney herself (or any other expert witness) to make the diagnosis. Perhaps, as the trial judge apparently concluded, she was not qualified by education, training, and experience to express a view that someone exhibiting the behavior of the child was probably a victim of sexual abuse. (This case does not present the question of whether such testimony — even by a highly trained expert — is inadmissible. See State v. Moran (similar testimony held inadmissible).) Rather than making a diagnosis, Ms. Kiddney testified that the behavior of the child was “consistent” with that of a victim of sexual abuse. The jury was then left to infer that the child was in fact a victim of sexual abuse. In my view, the jury should not be permitted to draw that inference from such testimony by Ms. Kiddney. The inference requires support from expert testimony actually making the “diagnosis” on the basis of the child’s behavior. In other contexts testimony that certain symptoms are consistent with a particular diagnosis is not, standing alone, admissible to prove the diagnosis. For example, an “expert witness” might testify that having acute appendicitis is consistent with having a temperature of 99.0 degrees Fahrenheit, dandruff, and a sore wrist. Yet a special verdict that the individual had acute appendicitis could not stand if the above testimony were all the evidence with respect to the diagnosis of acute appendicitis. For a jury to rationally diagnose a condition on the basis of testimony that certain symptoms are consistent with the condition, the jury also needs expert testimony regarding how probable the condition would be if those symptoms were present. Thus, courts ordinarily do not permit juries to draw a conclusion regarding medical diagnosis or medical causation without expert testimony directly supporting the conclusion. Indeed, it is generally required that the expert medical witness testify to his or her conclusion to a “reasonable medical probability,” or words of similar import. See Poertner v. Swearingen, 695 F.2d 435 (10th Cir.1982); Zerr v. Trenkle, 454 F.2d 1103 (10th Cir.1972). Similarly, I think it is questionable whether a jury should be permitted to make a “diagnosis” that a child is a “sexually-abused child” on the basis of expert testimony that goes no further than to say that the child’s behavior was “consistent” with that of a sexually-abused child. I recognize that there is a difference between medical diagnosis of appendicitis in a suit for, say, medical malpractice and “diagnosis” of a child as being sexually abused in a criminal prosecution for sexual abuse. Most importantly, in a prosecution for sexual abuse there would usually be direct testimony by the victim of such abuse. The verdict would therefore be supported by more than just the diagnosis of the child as a sexually-abused child. One might conclude that evidence that a child’s behavior is consistent with being a sexually-abused child is relevant because it has a tendency to make the fact that the child was sexually abused by the defendant “more probable * * * than it would be without the evidence.” SCRA 1986, 11-401. On the other hand, in the absence of expert testimony concerning how probative the “consistent behavior” is as to whether the child was in fact a victim of sexual abuse, the trial judge might well exclude the portion of the consistent-behavior testimony that was not admissible for “explanatory” purposes. Under SCRA 1986, Rule 11-403, relevant evidence may be excluded because of the “danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues or misleading the jury.” SCRA 1986, Rule 11-702 excludes expert testimony if it would not “assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” In summary, it was within the district court’s discretion to find that Ms. Kiddney was qualified to testify that the child’s behavior was consistent with that of victims of child sexual abuse. Also, such testimony, or at least some of it, was relevant as “explanatory” testimony to rebut defendant’s contention that the child’s behavior suggested that she had fabricated her accusation. On the other hand, some of the testimony — and some of the prosecution argument based on that testimony— apparently was intended solely to persuade the jury to “diagnose” the child as a victim of sexual abuse. If specific objection had been made to such testimony and argument, failure to sustain the objection might have been, on the record before us, an abuse of discretion. Because there was no objection, however, the state had no opportunity to cure any defect or to present evidence or argument supporting its actions. Moreover, defense counsel’s failure to pose a specific objection may have been tactical. Defendant’s brief-in-chief recites testimony that for a period of time after the alleged sexual abuse the child appeared very happy and well adjusted, made good grades, and was involved in school activities. Insofar as Ms. Kiddney’s testimony could support a conclusion that such behavior was inconsistent with that of a victim of child sexual abuse, defendant may have believed that Ms. Kiddney’s testimony on those matters could be helpful. Defense counsel’s objection to Ms. Kiddney’s testimony may have been intentionally imprecise, because a more precise objection might have strengthened the argument for the admissibility of the testimony most damaging to defendant (the explanatory testimony) while leading to exclusion of evidence arguably helpful to defendant (the diagnosis testimony). Given these realistic possibilities, it would be inappropriate to reverse when no precise objection was made. See 1 J. Weinstein & M. Berger, Weinstein’s Evidence ¶ 103[07] (1988). Cf. Moore v. United States, 399 F.2d 318 (5th Cir.1968), cert. denied, 393 U.S. 1098, 89 S.Ct. 893, 21 L.Ed.2d 789 (1969) (explicit waiver of objection by trial counsel for tactical reasons).