Court Opinion

ID: 9733009
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 16:49:30.622014+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:26:37.367008
License: Public Domain

JACK CARTER, Justice,
concurring.
The majority opinion finds the evidence of the self-destructive behavior of S.E. was admissible because Shawn Franklin Warren did not concede that a sexual assault occurred; since it was necessary to prove that the assault occurred, the self-destructive behavior was relevant as evidence of recent trauma. I am not convinced that there was a genuine dispute at this trial about the occurrence of a sexual assault to S.E. during this episode. Early in the State’s case, Ashley Prince, the codefen-dant, admitted that both she and Warren sexually assaulted S.E. The cross-examination of Prince attempted to establish that only Prince sexually assaulted S.E. while Warren was asleep in another room.3 The defense appeared to be that Warren did not participate in the sexual abuse, not that no abuse occurred. I believe that the testimony of self-mutilation is admissible, but for different reasons than presented in the majority opinion.
In Cohn v. State, an expert testified that children who have been sexually assaulted may show signs including depression and nervousness. The Texas Court of Criminal Appeals held that, even though these symptoms did not demonstrate sexual behaviors, expert testimony about signs of serious anxiety or post-traumatic stress disorder may still be relevant to establish that the child experienced some type of traumatic event.
[To] the extent it [the expert testimony] only provided circumstantial evidence that the children did experience some traumatic event, Dr. Roy’s testimony, both that anxiety behavior is at least consistent with sexual abuse, and that the children here exhibited such behavior in his presence, was relevant evidence, under Tex.R.Cr.Evid., Rules 401 & 402. It should come in as substantive evidence unless “its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.... ” TexR.Cr.Evid., Rule 403.
849 S.W.2d 817, 819 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (footnote omitted).
Here, an expert witness testified about symptoms experienced by children who have been sexually assaulted.4 Smith testified that self-mutilation is a coping mechanism displayed by children who have been sexually abused if they have not been able to express verbally the intense emotional trauma the abuse causes. Further, Smith stated that the act of cutting provides the victim with an emotional release from the abuse and is very often the result of the victim having been abused and most often sexually abused.
S.E.’s mother testified about the self-mutilation. That testimony, standing alone, very well may not have provided probative evidence that S.E. suffered sexu*852al abuse. Generally, one reason to allow expert testimony is to connect the lay witness testimony regarding factual details to the scientific explanation for such actions. See Williams v. State, 895 S.W.2d 363, 366 (Tex.Crim.App.1994). Here, the expert testimony supplied the same kind of testimony that has been allowed in many other sexual abuse cases. See Perez v. State, 113 S.W.3d 819, 832 (Tex.App.-Austin 2003, pet. ref'd) (“Expert testimony that a child exhibits behavioral characteristics that have been empirically shown to be common among children who have been abused is relevant and admissible as substantive evidence under Rule 702.”); Hitt v. State, 53 S.W.3d 697, 707 (Tex.App.Austin 2001, pet. ref d). The expert testimony acts as a connection between the actions of the victim (self-mutilation) and the occurrence of a sexual assault.
Since the expert supplied the causal connection between the sexual assault and the self-mutilation, I believe the expert’s testimony was admissible. Likewise, because of such connection, the mother’s testimony that S.E. displayed self-mutilation became probative and admissible.
Further, Rule 403 does not require impeachment before this substantive expert evidence, which has the effect of bolstering, is admissible. Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706, 709 (Tex.Crim.App.1993) (citing Cohn, 849 S.W.2d at 819).
I concur in the judgment of the court, but believe Cohn and its progeny supply the proper basis for admitting the disputed testimony.

. Prince was asked by defense counsel on cross-examination: “Isn’t it true that that night you and [S.E.] had a sexual encounter in the back bedroom, and my client was asleep in the master bedroom?”

. No challenge is made to the qualifications of the expert or that such testimony did not meet the necessary standards.