Summary
The Supreme Court of Oregon held that expert testimony asserting that delayed reporting is a predominant feature of disclosures of child sexual abuse is scientific evidence. The testimony therefore required an adequate foundation under State v. Brown and State v. O'Key, which the state failed to provide. Because the testimony addressed a central credibility issue and there was no physical or eyewitness corroboration, the court reversed the conviction and remanded for further proceedings.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether expert testimony that delayed reporting is a predominant feature of a child's disclosure of sexual abuse constitutes scientific evidence subject to the foundational requirements of State v. Brown and State v. O'Key.
- Whether the admission of the expert testimony without the required scientific foundation was harmless.
Holdings
- Expert testimony concerning delayed reporting constitutes scientific evidence when it possesses a significantly increased potential to influence the trier of fact as a scientific assertion, even if the testimony concerns behavioral rather than hard science and is offered to explain a victim's behavior rather than as direct substantive proof of abuse.
- The erroneous admission of the expert's scientifically framed testimony was not harmless because delayed reporting was central to the credibility dispute, there were no other witnesses or physical evidence corroborating the alleged abuse, and the record did not establish that the testimony had no impact on the trial court's verdict.
Key quotations
“We now hold that the expert's testimony possessed the potential to influence the trier of fact as scientific assertions and required an appropriate foundation that the state failed to provide.” (335 Or. at 555)
“An expert like Shouse, who has a background in behavioral sciences and who claims that her knowledge is based on studies, research, and the literature in the field, announces to the factfinder that the basis of her testimony is "scientific," i.e., is grounded on conclusions that have been reached through application of a scientific method to collected data.” (335 Or. at 916)
“This case involved a swearing contest. The victim claimed that there had been sexual contact in the form of inappropriate touching; defendant denied that it had occurred.” (335 Or. at 917)
Factual background
The twelve-year-old victim alleged that Marrington, a family friend, touched her genitals and caused her to touch the crotch of his pants while she was visiting his home. She did not disclose the incident immediately and reported it to her mother more than a month later. At trial, the state's expert testified that delayed reporting was a predominant feature of disclosure in child sexual-abuse cases, and Marrington denied any sexual contact.
Procedural history
Marrington was convicted in the circuit court of two counts of first-degree sexual abuse. The Court of Appeals affirmed without opinion. The Oregon Supreme Court allowed Marrington's petition for review, reversed the Court of Appeals and circuit court judgments, and remanded for further proceedings.
Remand instructions
The case was remanded to the circuit court for further proceedings. If the state again offers the expert's testimony concerning delayed reporting, the trial court must ensure that the evidence satisfies the foundational standards of State v. Brown and State v. O'Key.