 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
State v. Alberico9/26/1991
vior of the alleged victim and interpretation of the symptoms of PTSD is probably not within the ken of the average person. See, e.g., State v. Strickland, 96 N.C.App. 642, 387 S.E.2d 62 (1990) (testimony that victim was suffering from PTSD and that her behavior was consistent with the behavior of other victims of sexual assault held admissible); State v. Liddell, 685 P.2d at 923 ("Psychiatric testimony [regarding PTSS and RTS] is admissible to aid a jury in determining whether there was consent to engage in a sexual act which all parties agree occurred. It remains up to the jury to determine whether the evidence is credible.").
Moreover, this court has recently upheld the admission of similar expert testimony to assist the jury to understand the behavior of a sexually abused individual. See . In Newman the district court ruled that a counselor and therapist in sexual abuse matters could state her opinion concerning whether a child's behavior was consistent with that of a sexually abused child. I see no reason why the expert testimony in the present case should be treated any differently. While the district court in Newman did not allow the expert to testify as to whether she believed the individual was being truthful about the alleged incident or whether the individual's condition was actually caused by sexual abuse, the expert testimony presently in question does not fall into either limitation. Dr. Lenssen simply testified, as did the expert in Newman, that the behavior exhibited by the alleged victim was consistent with sexual abuse. See
C. Abuse of Discretion
Further, we should not lose sight of the fact that the reviewing court's role is to determine whether the district court abused its discretion regarding the admission of evidence. See ) (Once a trial court has made a determination to admit expert testimony under Rule 11-702 "such a decision is accorded great weight by a reviewing court and . . . will be upheld absent an abuse of discretion."); ) ("It is only when the proffered evidence is clearly within the comprehension of a layman that we will disturb [the court's] judgment."). The majority
has adopted a rule that would deprive the district court of exercising that discretion with respect to this type testimony. I disagree. By excluding the evidence in this case as a matter of law, we also deprive defendant in another case, from offering similar testimony which might cast considerable doubt upon the alleged victim's claim of rape. For example, the alleged victim may have engaged in consensual sex, but claimed rape for any number of reasons and once having done so, found himself or herself in a position where they were reluctant to admit the falsehood. It is possible that a mental health care provider, examining such an individual, could be of considerable help to the trier of fact in determining whether the intercourse was forced or consensual.
D. Conclusion
While I agree that expert testimony should be limited to areas that have gained general acceptance, I believe that the testimony admitted in this case through Dr. Lenssen falls within that limitation. I agree with the district court that this testimony can assist the trier of fact. Therefore, I would hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing into evidence the psychologist's testimony. I respectfully dissent.
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 New Mexico Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|