Court Opinion

ID: 9666911
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:30:06.440174+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:33.521315
License: Public Domain

DAUGHTREY, Justice,
concurring.
In ruling the expert testimony offered in this case to be inadmissible, the majority cites as authority the Court of Criminal Appeals decision in State v. Schimpf, 782 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn.Crim.App.1989). For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Schimpf, id. at 196-199, I continue to believe that certain kinds of expert testimony concerning the diagnosis of child sexual abuse should be considered admissible, especially in light of the promulgation of Rules 702 and 704 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Because I also believe that the majority opinion brushes with too broad a stroke in invalidating any and all such expert testimony, even though I agree that Dr. Luscomb’s testimony may have been too general to be of assistance to the jury that heard this case, I concur only in the result reached by the majority.