In re Sarah C., 2004 ME 152

Summary

The Maine Supreme Judicial Court reviewed a jeopardy order involving a father accused of sexually abusing his daughter's friend. The court held that portions of an expert psychologist's statistical testimony concerning the likelihood of abuse of the father's daughter lacked sufficient reliability and should not have been admitted. It nevertheless affirmed the judgment because the error was harmless and the jeopardy determination was supported by other evidence.

Holdings

1. Expert testimony must be relevant, assist the fact-finder in understanding the evidence or determining a fact in issue, and satisfy a threshold level of reliability. The expert's quantified estimate that the father had a fifteen-to-twenty-seven-percent likelihood of sexually abusing Sarah was insufficiently reliable because it was not based on research corresponding to the facts of the case, was not tailored to the father's psychological profile, had not been peer reviewed, and had not been tested.
2. The erroneous admission of the expert's statistical testimony was harmless because it was highly probable that the testimony did not affect the court's judgment.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the trial court improperly admitted expert testimony quantifying the likelihood that the father would sexually abuse Sarah based on his sexual abuse of Sarah's friend.
2. Whether any error in admitting the expert's statistical testimony required reversal of the jeopardy order.

Disposition

affirmed