Summary
The Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court held that a prosecutor elicited impermissible expert testimony from the victim's therapist that implicitly vouched for the credibility of the alleged sexual-abuse victim. Because the error was prejudicial, the court vacated the defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial. The court also concluded that evidence of the victim's pregnancy was properly excluded under the rape-shield statute and the circumstances of the case.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the prosecutor elicited impermissible expert testimony that explicitly or implicitly vouched for the credibility of the victim's sexual-abuse allegations.
- Whether the trial judge improperly excluded evidence that the victim was pregnant when she first disclosed the alleged abuse.
Holdings
- A treating therapist may testify about general behavioral characteristics of sexually abused children, but may not compare the complainant's behavior to those characteristics in a manner that reasonably suggests the complainant was sexually abused or was telling the truth. The prosecutor's cross-examination of the therapist crossed that line and its admission was an abuse of discretion.
- The trial judge did not abuse her discretion in excluding evidence that the victim was pregnant when she disclosed the alleged abuse, where the evidence concerned sexual conduct covered by the rape-shield statute and the defendant already had abundant evidence that the victim did not want him to return home.
Key quotations
“No witness, neither a lay witness nor an expert, may offer an opinion regarding the credibility of another witness.” (469 Mass. at 648)
“But a defendant does not open the door so wide as to permit a treating therapist to implicitly vouch for the credibility of a victim's claim of sexual abuse simply by calling that therapist to testify about the victim's symptoms and the victim's description of her problems.” (469 Mass. at 652)
“We therefore vacate the defendant's convictions and remand for a new trial.” (469 Mass. at 654)
Factual background
The defendant, the victim's mother's boyfriend, lived with the victim and her mother for approximately ten years. The victim testified that the defendant sexually abused her on three occasions shortly after her seventh birthday and threatened to kill her and her mother if she disclosed the abuse. She did not disclose the abuse until age sixteen, after developing significant emotional and school-related difficulties and beginning therapy with Grace Ireland, a licensed clinical social worker. At trial, Ireland testified about behavioral characteristics associated with child sexual abuse and the victim's symptoms, and the prosecutor elicited that the victim's behavior was consistent with those characteristics.
Procedural history
Indictments were returned in the Superior Court Department on August 29, 2007. The first trial ended in a mistrial after a deadlocked jury; following a second trial, the defendant was convicted and sentenced. The Appeals Court affirmed the convictions, after which the Supreme Judicial Court granted the defendant's application for further appellate review. The Supreme Judicial Court vacated the convictions and remanded for a new trial.
Remand instructions
Vacate the defendant's convictions, set aside the verdicts, and remand the case to the Superior Court for a new trial.