Court Opinion

ID: 9836856
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-02 03:15:14.405429+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:45:19.064299
License: Public Domain

CRAWFORD, Chief Judge
(dissenting):
I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that the error substantially influenced the findings. I also disagree that the victim’s (CA’s) testimony was ambiguous and uncertain, and that she “may be prone to perceptual inaccuracies.”
Dr. Scarano-Osika, the defense expert, conducted a variety of psychological tests on CA. She testified that based upon the Rorschach Test, CA’s perceptual capacity was unflawed at the time of the testing. She also testified that it is possible CA could be prone to perceptual inaccuracies in the future, but that “[tjhere are many factors that could prevent that from happening.” This was confirmed on cross-examination. There is simply no indication in the record that CA was prone to perceptual inaccuracies at the time of the testing. Also, I find compelling CA’s repeated testimony that she did not tell appellant to stop or warn her sisters of appellant’s behavior because she “didn’t know” her father when he was sexually abusing her, and that he was a “different person” then.
In my view, CA was a strong witness, and Dr. Geiger’s testimony was harmless. Her opinion was based on a 1-hour interview, and. Dr. Geiger admitted that there could be other traumatic events which might explain CA’s behavior.