Court Opinion

ID: 9579011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-21 21:50:36.133763+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:34:09.819191
License: Public Domain

DAVIS, Presiding Judge,
dissenting:
I dissent from the majority’s disposition of the case. Based on the holding of Rim-masch, it is my view that the relevant testimony of both Dr. Hawks and Detective De-Hart were admitted in violation of Rule 608(a) of the Utah Rules of Evidence. Therefore, I would reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a new trial.
“[R]ule 608(a)(1) bars admission of an expert’s testimony as to the truthfulness of a witness on a particular occasion.” State v. Rimmasch, 775 P.2d 388, 392 (Utah 1989). In Rimmasch, the Utah Supreme Court determined whether the testimony of the prosecutor’s expert witness directly commented on the victim’s truthfulness. In response to the prosecutor’s request that the expert “explain the basis for her opinion that the daughter had been sexually abused,” the expert stated, “ Well, specifically, in my opinion, one does not give this kind of information with the amount of details and the amount of clarity unless one has experienced it.’ ” Id. at 392-93 (citation omitted). When asked by the prosecutor whether the daughter had anything to gain by falsely accusing her father of sexual abuse, the expert replied that she did not think the daughter had anything to gain. See id. at 393.
In determining whether the testimony amounted to an opinion of the daughter’s truthfulness regarding the abuse, the supreme court stated,
Although it is arguable that this testimony amounts only to a statement of the basis of the expert’s opinion on abuse, we conclude that the prosecutor, in eliciting this testimony and focusing on the reasons why Dr. Tyler thought the daughter was telling the truth, crossed the line and elicited a direct opinion on the daughter’s truthfulness at the time she made her allegations of abuse. Through the first statement, the fact finder learned that Dr. Tyler, as an expert, had concluded that the daughter was telling the truth because of the amount of detail and clarity the daughter used in relating the alleged occurrences of sexual abuse. The second statement told the fact finder that one of the reasons Dr. Tyler thought the daughter’s accusations of abuse against her father were truthful was because the doctor could envision no motive for the daughter to lie.
Id. The court then held that the trial court erred in admitting the testimony into evidence in violation of Rule 608(a). See id.
Dr. Hawks’s testimony here is comparable to the expert’s testimony in Rimmasch. The relevant colloquy at trial was as follows:
[Prosecutor:] Dr. Hawks, let me ask you this. Based on your experience with prior or similar interviews with sex abuse victims, with children or otherwise, did you find — did you form an opinion as to Car-leen’s — as to whether her story was improbable or not believable?
[[Image here]]
[Defense counsel]: I don’t believe, Your Honor, that’s a proper question for him to be answering.
The Court: An expert witness can’t opine concerning reliability of witnesses. The objection is sustained. That’s the function of the jury.
[Prosecutor:] Could your evaluation and expertise tell you whether she was sophisticated enough to make up the story that was alleged herel
[[Image here]]
*789[Defense counsel]: And at this point, Your Honor, I’m going to object to him answering that until there’s further foundation. What he’s talking about now I don’t believe — he’s gone into his examination of her testifying truthfully in this case. That, again, is the prerogative of the jury. I think it’s improper.
The Court: Well, I think the form of the question is different and he has given some background. The objection is overruled. [Dr. Hawks:] In my opinion, that’s a difficult question and surely I couldn’t answer that 100 percent positively; however; it would seem that someone who — in the school system who has been taught in special ed and resource classes — and she’s 34, I believe — and if all those years of special ed and resource classes couldn’t get her to even write her name correctly, couldn’t get her to pass — count past age 50[1] — I mean, count past number 50 or say the alphabet, that I’d have trouble — it would be difficult for me to assume somebody could coach her, even if they tried, to consistently report anything, you know, even their birthday. I mean, she was inaccurate in giving her birthday. She struggled with that.
So I find it trouble if — if she has difficulty in doing, you know, second and third grade level, that I would — I’d have real trouble to see anybody: a mother or me or the school system, if they can’t do it with counting, how could — I ask myself, could someone do it with persuasion or threats to — to get her to consistently across two interviews spontaneously talk about some sexual activities that occurred.

So in my opinion, that’s probably not likely.

(Emphasis added.) Thus, Dr. Hawks opined that it was “probably not likely” that Carleen was either coached or sophisticated enough to make up the story alleged here.
It stretches the imagination to see how this testimony does anything other than improperly comment on Carleen’s truthfulness on a particular occasion.2 See Rimmasch, 775 P.2d at 392. The prosecutor clearly intended to have Dr. Hawks testify regarding Carleen’s truthfulness as to the alleged events and, after a proper and timely objection by defense counsel, simply rephrased the question and got the desired answer as to Carleen’s truthfulness. As in Rimmasch, although Dr. Hawks’s testimony arguably amounts to no more than a statement of his opinion as to whether Carleen has the cognitive ability to be coached, the jury heard that Dr. Hawks, as an expert, believed that Car-leen was telling the truth because she did not have the ability to be coached and was not sophisticated enough to make up the story. Therefore, by allowing Dr. Hawks to testify as he did, the trial court did exactly what Rule 608(a) and Rimmasch prohibits — admitted expert testimony as to a witness’s truthfulness on a particular occasion.
Detective DeHart also testified regarding whether he thought Carleen was coached:
[Prosecutor:] Okay. Did it appear to you at all that Carleen was coached?
[Detective DeHart:] No, it did not appear to me that Carleen had been coached. [Prosecutor:] Either at the time or even — even prior to your coming there? [Detective DeHart:] No, it did not.
The majority opinion correctly concludes that Detective DeHart’s testimony was in violation of Rule 608(a) and supports its conclusion that the error was harmless by holding that the detective’s testimony was merely cumulative of the “proper” testimony of Dr. Hawks. I find it illogical that Detective De-Hart’s testimony, determined by the majority to be in violation of Rule 608(a), can be termed “cumulative” of Dr. Hawks’s testimo*790ny, determined by the majority to be within the parameters of Rule 608(a). From the perspective of a juror, it is hard to imagine how the detective improperly testified as to the witness’s truthfulness on a particular occasion or “essentially averred that Carleen was telling the truth” and the expert did not.
The error in this ease was prejudicial to defendant. See State v. Stefaniak, 900 P.2d 1094, 1096 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (“Having determined that the court erred in admitting the testimony bolstering the victim’s credibility, we must separately determine whether the error was prejudicial in this ease.”). “ ‘[Tjhis case depended on the jury’s assessment of the victim’s credibility versus the defendant’s, and there is not “other evidence [to support] the defendant’s conviction” ... beyond that which is tainted by ... improper testimony.’ ” Id. (quoting State v. Iorg, 801 P.2d 938, 941 (Utah Ct.App.1990) (citation omitted)) (alterations in original). In the context of this ease, the “other evidence” supporting Carleen’s allegations (itself bolstered by Carleen’s testimony which was bolstered by the expert and the detective) is, even if true, hardly adequate to support a conviction. Accordingly, I would reverse defendant’s conviction and remand for a retrial.

. If Dr. Hawks’s remarks were restricted to Car-leen’s limited abilities, it is doubtful that his testimony would have violated Rule 608(a), and the jury would have had the opportunity to decide whether she was being truthful.

. Rule 608(a) is especially important here where the focus of the defense is on the credibility of the only direct witness. Defendant claimed that Carleen’s mother, who was defendant’s "jilted” lover, invented the allegations and then coached Carleen to tell the story in retaliation for defendant breaking off their relationship. Because the only real evidence supporting Carleen's allegations was Carleen's testimony, thus making the case a credibility contest, an improper bolstering of her credibility put defendant at an unfair disadvantage.