Court Opinion

ID: 9850732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 05:02:03.521486+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:20:42.543653
License: Public Domain

Cavanagh, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur with the majority’s conclusion that the expert’s testimony about the battered woman syndrome was irrelevant and, accordingly, was erroneously admitted. I further agree with the majority’s analysis that the error was harmless. However, for the reasons stated in People v Beckley, 434 Mich 691; 456 NW2d 391 (1990), I would limit the use of the battered woman syndrome evidence to the narrow purpose of rebutting an inference that the complainant’s postincident behavior is inconsistent with that expected of rape victims. Id. at 710 (Brickley, J.), and at 744 (Archer, J.). This inference normally would be created by an impeachment of a complainant’s trial testimony either by the prosecutor or the defendant or by a challenge to the complainant’s postincident behavior by the defendant.1
The majority does not address whether it will *602allow an expert witness to testify with respect to the complainant’s behavior in the particular case. Riley, J., ante at 591, n 23. However, I would caution trial courts not to allow such testimony. Once the expert has testified about the specific characteristics of the syndrome that are relevant to the particular case, the jury can readily reach its own conclusion about whether the complainant’s behavior, which appears inconsistent with that of most rape victims, has been explained by the syndrome. The purpose of the evidence has been achieved. Consequently, I believe that the marginal probative value of allowing testimony with respect to the specific complainant’s behavior is substantially outweighed by the unfairly prejudicial danger that the jury may conclude that the expert, in fact, knows that the complainant has been a battered individual. MRE 403.2
*603The majority relies on an analogy between battered woman syndrome and child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome, which was the focus in Beckley. I am apprehensive of such unfettered reliance. In Beckley, the defendants were convicted of criminal sexual conduct. The child complainants were the alleged victims of that criminal sexual conduct. Therefore, expert testimony with respect to child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome was directly related to the charges that actually faced the defendants. By comparison, in cases such as this case, the defendant has been charged with criminal sexual conduct — not spousal battery. Moreover, the complainant is alleging rape — not spousal abuse. In contrast to the child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome evidence, the battered woman syndrome opens the door to other bad act evidence, which prejudicially places the defendant’s character into evidence as a spouse batterer, with the probable and impermissible inference that he acted "in conformity therewith.” MRE 404(b)(1). Such evidence is undoubtedly extremely prejudicial. Therefore, I believe that the rationale for precluding expert testimony about the particular complainant is even more compelling than in child sexual abuse cases.
An expert testifying about the battered woman syndrome can adequately furnish the jury with an explanation for illogical postrape behavior of a complainant through general observations and *604hypothetical questions.3 For example, in State v Ciskie, 110 Wash 2d 263, 278-279; 751 P2d 1165 (1988), the expert witness was questioned about a hypothetical case history that paralleled the complainant’s behavior. On the basis of the hypothetical example, the expert testified that delayed reporting was characteristic of battered woman syndrome.4
Similarly, State v Borrelli, 227 Conn 153, 174; 629 A2d 1105 (1993), approved of the use of syndrome evidence for the purpose of offering an explanation for the complainant’s recantation. As a threshold matter, the court found significant that the expert
did not examine the victim. He did not offer any opinion as to whether she was a battered woman or whether she exhibited the typical behavioral characteristics of a battered woman. [The expert] did not apply any scientific instrument or test to specific evidence in the case, nor did he use battered woman’s syndrome as a diagnostic tool. Finally, he did not apply any scientific test to a hypothetical question posed by the state. Instead, *605[the expert’s] testimony was based on his observations of a large group of battered women through the lens of his educational background and experience. [Id. at 164-165.]
In this case, the majority finds that the expert witness, after explaining the general nature of battered woman syndrome "never opined whether complainant’s behavior was consistent with this general criteria and, in fact, indicated that he never met or treated complainant or defendant.” Riley, J., ante at 598-599 (emphasis in original). The majority finds this fact significant. I believe that this should be the rule that we announce today. The prosecution can readily produce an expert who has had no contact with the individuals involved in the case. Through general testimony and through hypothetical questions the substance of the syndrome can be presented to the trier of fact and the purpose of its use can be achieved. In addition, a limiting instruction to the jury will mitigate improper use of the evidence. I see no reason to additionally allow an expert to testify about the particular case on trial, because the marginal probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice.
Levin, J., concurred with Cavanagh, J.

 The rebuttal purpose is supported by the case law. In State v Ciskie, 110 Wash 2d 263, 278; 751 P2d 1165 (1988), the battered woman syndrome evidence was admitted after the defense challenged specific postincident behavior of the complainant as being "inconsistent with that of a rape victim.” Likewise, in State v Frost, 242 NJ Super 601, 614; 577 A2d 1282 (1990), the expert testimony was admitted after the defense had attacked the complainant’s credibility by emphasizing specific postincident behavior as being inconsistent with that of a rape victim. The court stated that after hearing the defense’s allegations,
the jury quite properly could have concluded — based on the misconception that battered women are free to leave — that, if [the complainant] had indeed been assaulted that day, she *602would have immediately called for help. It required expert testimony to assist the jury in understanding, not whether [the complainant] was a credible witness on the witness stand, but whether her conduct on [the date of the alleged assault] was consistent with the pattern and profile of a battered woman. [Id.]
Similarly, in State v Borrelli, 227 Conn 153, 157-158; 629 A2d 1105 (1993), the complainant recanted her earlier statement to the police and during cross-examination by the defense, the complainant testified to a different version of the events, and that she had fabricated her first story with the hope of having the defendant arrested and treated for drug abuse. Thus, the prosecution sought to challenge the complainant’s testimony. The court approved of the use of syndrome evidence for the purpose of offering an explanation for the complainant’s recantation. Id. at 174. Additionally, in Arcoren v United States, 929 F2d 1235, 1238-1239 (CA 8, 1991), the complainant recanted her prior allegations at trial and the government offered the expert testimony to explain the recantation. Finally, in State v Baker, 120 NH 773, 775; 424 A2d 171 (1980), the syndrome evidence "was offered to rebut the defendant’s evidence . . . .”

 As Justice Archer explained in his partial dissent in Beckley:
Once an expert witness presents evidence disabusing the specific misconception at hand, such as delayed disclosure, syndrome evidence has served its proper function. This function *603can be accomplished just as effectively without reference to the complainant before the court. Although the [Beckley] lead opinion recognizes that syndrome evidence is, by nature, as highly prejudicial as it is probative, see, e.g., [id. at] 723-725 (Brickley, J.), it wholly fails to recognize that the marginal probative value of the expert’s testimony with reference to the specific complainant before the court pales in comparison to the increased and substantial degree of prejudice a criminal defendant will face. [Id. at 748.]

 In Baker, the expert witnesses testified about the general nature of battering, and then testified about specific behavior by answering hypothetical questions. Id. at 775-776. Likewise, in Arcoren, n 1 supra at 1239, the expert testified only about general aspects of the syndrome and did not testify about whether the complainant "suffered from or displayed symptoms of the syndrome.”

 However, the court criticized testimony from the expert that she had examined the complainant and "diagnosed her as suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder.” Id. at 279. Even though the expert testified that posttraumatic stress could be caused by events other than rape, the court stated that the preferable approach would be to bar diagnosis testimony altogether. Id. at 280. The court explained:
Testimony from a psychological expert on a diagnosis as to whether an alleged victim was in fact raped is troublesome because of a danger of invading the function of the trier of fact. Such testimony often amounts to a comment on the credibility of a witness. [Id.]