Summary
The Supreme Court of Virginia held that a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner may qualify as an expert and testify regarding the causation of injuries in an alleged sexual assault without being a licensed physician. However, the court held that the nurse's combined opinions that the injuries were inconsistent with consensual intercourse and consistent with nonconsensual intercourse improperly expressed an opinion on the ultimate issue of rape and invaded the jury's province. The conviction was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial because the remaining evidence was sufficient to support a finding of penile penetration.
Holdings
- A Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner need not be licensed to practice medicine or hold a medical degree to express an expert opinion concerning the causation of injuries in the context of an alleged sexual assault, and giving that opinion at trial does not constitute the unlawful practice of medicine.
- Although a SANE may testify that injuries are inconsistent with consensual intercourse, the additional opinion that the injuries are consistent with nonconsensual intercourse, when combined with the first opinion, improperly expresses an opinion that the victim was raped and therefore invades the province of the jury.
- The remaining evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding of penile penetration and the rape conviction; Velazquez was not entitled to an acquittal.
Questions Presented
- Whether a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner who is not a licensed physician may qualify as an expert and testify regarding the causation of injuries in an alleged sexual assault.
- Whether the SANE's testimony that the victim's injuries were inconsistent with consensual intercourse and consistent with nonconsensual intercourse improperly expressed an opinion on the ultimate issue and invaded the province of the jury.
- Whether, excluding the improperly admitted expert opinion, the evidence was sufficient to prove penile penetration and sustain the rape conviction.
- Whether reversal based on improperly admitted expert testimony required an acquittal rather than a retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
Disposition
reversed_and_remanded
Cases Cited (18)
- Turner v. Commonwealth, 259 Va. 645, 529 S.E.2d 787 (2000)(followed)
- Hussen v. Commonwealth, 257 Va. 93, 511 S.E.2d 106 (1999), cert. denied, 526 U.S. 1137 (1999)(distinguished)
- Combs v. Norfolk & Western Railway Co., 256 Va. 490, 507 S.E.2d 355 (1998)(distinguished)
- Sami v. Varn, 260 Va. 280, 535 S.E.2d 172 (2000)(followed)
- Noll v. Rahal, 219 Va. 795, 250 S.E.2d 741 (1979)(followed)
- Neblett v. Hunter, 207 Va. 335, 150 S.E.2d 115 (1966)(followed)
- Norfolk & Western Railway Co. v. Anderson, 207 Va. 567, 151 S.E.2d 628 (1966)(followed)
- Cates v. Commonwealth, 111 Va. 837, 69 S.E. 520 (1910)(followed)
- Gregory v. State, 56 S.W.3d 164 (Tex. App. 2001)(persuasive)
- State v. White, 340 N.C. 264, 457 S.E.2d 841 (1995)(persuasive)
Showing top 10 of 18.
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…