Court Opinion

ID: 9849272
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:37:29.654001+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:19:12.799911
License: Public Domain

Judge BeCTON
concurring in the result.
Considering the current social science and medical research on rape trauma syndrome, I conclude that Dr. Ponzi’s testimony about rape trauma syndrome was reversibly prejudicial. First, although it may be a therapeutic tool, the rape trauma syndrome has not gained acceptability as a socio-medical scientifically reliable means for proving that a rape occurred. As the Minnesota Supreme Court said in State v. Saldana, 324 N.W. 2d 227, 229-30 (1982):
Rape trauma syndrome is not the type of scientific test that accurately and reliably determines whether a rape has occurred. The characteristic symptoms may follow any psychologically traumatic event. American Psychiatric Association, Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders 236 (3d ed. 1980). At best, the syndrome describes only symptoms that occur with some frequency, but makes no pretense of describing every single case. C. Warner, Rape and Sexual Assault 145 (1980).
*23Some suggest that there are as many as fifty symptoms of the rape trauma syndrome today, many of which would be applicable to hijack victims, prisoners of war, kidnap victims, as well as others who have been subjected to psychologically traumatic events. Second, Dr. Ponzi did not testify about the reliability or validity of the rape trauma syndrome evidence in this case. Third, the history and purpose of the rape trauma syndrome concept suggests that it was not designed to prove that a rape in fact occurred. As the California Supreme Court observed in People v. Bledsoe, 36 Cal. 3d 236, 249-50, 203 Cal. Rptr. 450, 459, 681 P. 2d 291, 300 (1984):
Unlike fingerprints, blood tests, lie detector tests, voiceprints or the battered child syndrome, rape trauma syndrome was not devised to determine the “truth” or “accuracy” of a particular event — i.e., whether, in fact, a rape in the legal sense occurred — but rather was developed by professional rape counselors as a therapeutic tool, to help identify, predict and treat emotional problems experienced by the counselors’ clients or patients. . . . [R]ape counselors are taught to make a conscious effort to avoid judging the credibility of their clients. . . . “[W]hen a psychologist becomes judgmental, he/she has become entrapped in a major pitfall. . . .”
Thus, as a rule, rape counselors do not probe inconsistencies in their clients’ descriptions of the facts of the incident, nor do they conduct independent investigations to determine whether other evidence corroborates or contradicts their clients’ renditions.
(quoting Kilpatrick, Rape Victims: Detection, Assessment and Treatment (Summer 1983) Clinical Psychologist 92, 94) (citation omitted). Finally and significantly, defendant did not raise “consent” as a defense. Use of the rape trauma syndrome when a defendant contends the victim consented is not as problematical as use of the syndrome when, as in the instant case, the defendant contends he did not engage in sexual intercourse with the victim. That is, when a defendant does not contest the fact that a rape occurred, but merely denies he committed it, rape trauma syndrome evidence may be irrelevant and prejudicial.
Although set in print, these words are not figuratively cast in stone for eternity. When, and if, the methodological flaws in *24rape trauma syndrome studies are avoided and the rape trauma syndrome gains general acceptance as a non-prejudicial tool to inform jurors about what course of action they should take, I would not hesitate to re-evaluate the position I take today.
Believing the jury could have been misled by Dr. Ponzi’s testimony, even though he offered no opinion, and that the danger of unfair prejudice outweighs any probative value the evidence may have had, I concur in the result.