Court Opinion

ID: 9658012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:43:53.855613+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:50.575117
License: Public Domain

HENDERSON, Justice
(concurring in result).
I concur in this opinion with but one exception: Corroboration by a social worker cannot be “in the psychological assessments and profiles of the child”; the social worker testified from hearsay in the first instance and to add a layer of expertise to her testimony is extending medical expertise of which she has none. She is not qualified to make a psychological assessment of the child. Although she has had approximately 70 hours of training in the area of sexual abuse interview techniques with children and some basic training in the area of general sexual abuse, see trial transcript at 121, she is by no means a psychologist. Profiles of the child, I assume, would probe into the child’s age and knowledge of human anatomy. This might well be a determination into the usage, in the first instance, of anatomical dolls by a social worker. It is not corroboration, as such. The social worker put it this way: “The most important thing, I guess, the credibility for using the dolls lies with the interviewer. The interviewer must have knowledge of the child’s development.” See trial transcript at 127. It is understandable that a social worker must determine if a child’s development and knowledge is advanced enough to intelligently relate to anatomical dolls. In the final analysis, however, all credibility of the child witness must be with a jury, the trier of the fact. State v. Minkel, 89 S.D. 144, 230 N.W.2d 233 (1975). It cannot be with the social worker. There is great danger in permitting social workers to express opinions beyond facts. Facts which they can testify to from observation and from that which is expressed to them by a child, under an admissible hearsay exception, is another matter. State v. McCafferty, 356 N.W.2d 159, 161 (S.D.1984); Federal Rule of Evidence 803(2). Many states, under the Federal Rules, have relaxed the spontaneity requirements when the child is a child of tender years. Hearsay testimony can be devastating and social workers must not be permitted to testify as to conclusions of medical expertise, or that, in point of fact, a crime has been committed. Social workers cannot invade the province of the jury. Thus, profiles of the child should be limited to a biographic sketch and should not include conclusions which usurp the function of the jury. See State v. Logue, 372 N.W.2d 151, 158-59 (S.D.1985).