blank

Expert Testimony: “The Child Was Sexually Abused”

linkedin
Share on Google+
Share on Reddit
Share on Tumblr
Download PDF

Child sexual abuse cases raise a bevy of evidence issues. One recurring issue is this: Is it permissible for the State’s expert to testify that sexual abuse in fact occurred? The answer is yes, in certain circumstances. Here are the rules:

1. In a case involving a child victim, an expert may testify that sexual abuse in fact occurred if a proper foundation is laid.

2. To lay a foundation, the State must establish physical evidence consistent with abuse.

3. If there are no physical findings supporting a diagnosis of sexual abuse, the testimony is an impermissible opinion regarding the child’s credibility.

State v. Stancil, 355 N.C. 266 (2002).

This very issue came up in a recent case, State v. Black. In Black, the defendant was charged with sexual assaults on the child victim, Deborah. After the alleged incidents, the child began seeing Nadia Antoszyk, a licensed clinical social worker. At trial, Antoszyk testified as an expert for the State. When asked about Deborah’s treatment, Antoszyk replied in part: “For a child, that means . . . being able to, um, come to terms with all the issues that are consistent with someone that has been sexually abused.” Antoszyk also testified on multiple occasions to the conclusion that the sexual abuse experienced by Deborah started at a young age, perhaps age seven, and continued until she was removed from the home. When asked why Deborah lashed out at a family member, Antoszyk explained that the behavior was “part of a history of a child that goes through sexual abuse.” With respect to her concerns about the adequacy of that same family member’s caregiving, Antoszyk testified: “She had every opportunity to get the education and the information to become an informed parent about a child that is sexually abused.” Finally, when asked if it was reasonable for that family member to have some doubt as to Deborah’s story given that Deborah had recanted on multiple occasions, Antoszyk responded: “With me, there was no uncertainty.” In its case in chief, the State presented no physical evidence indicating that Deborah was abused. The defendant was convicted. He appealed, arguing, among other things, that Antoszyk’s testimony improperly vouched for Deborah’s credibility.

The court of appeals agreed that Antoszyk’s testimony was improper. Referencing the rules noted above, the court concluded: “Each time, Ms. Antoszyk effectively asserted that Deborah was a sexually abused child even though the State had presented no physical evidence of abuse. The testimony was, therefore, improperly admitted.” The court went on to conclude that the error did not rise to the level of plain error.

In Black the problem was that there was no physical evidence to support the expert’s testimony. State v. Streater, 197 N.C. App. 632 (2009), provides a good example of the type of physical evidence that’s needed to lay an adequate foundation for this type of testimony. In Streater, the court held that a pediatrician properly was allowed to testify that his findings were consistent with the victim’s history of vaginal penetration because an adequate foundation was laid. Specifically, the expert testified that he examined the child and found that her vaginal opening was “abnormal in several ways,” including its size and the presence of notches and a scar. The court went on to hold that the same expert improperly testified that his findings were consistent with the child’s history of anal penetration. In this respect, his examination of the victim’s anal opening showed no abnormal findings. As in Black, no physical evidence supported the statement that anal penetration occurred.

The black letter rules that apply to these cases can be easily stated. However, their application is often a bit trickier than Black and Streater suggest. As the Streater court noted: “There is a fine line between permissible and impermissible expert testimony . . . .” Streater, 197 N.C. App. at 640. Further complicating the issue is the fact that different rules apply to profile and related evidence. If there is interest, I’ll take those issues up in another post.

6 comments on “Expert Testimony: “The Child Was Sexually Abused”

  1. Jessica, the issue for me is the many cases where there is no physical evidence and trying to get the expert to properly explain that even with no physical evidence this fact does not rule out the possibility of sexual abuse. What do the cases say are safe questions? Streater was my case and my questions was based on other cases where I thought it was safe to ask whether or not the history was consistent with the exam findings. Her opinion was that it was consistent because anal findings are so unusual even with known penetration. What is safe for us to ask with the current restrictions? I have been meaning to ask this for a while. This post just begged me to do it.

  2. Definitely interested in the rules appling to profile and related evidence. I look forward to reading about these issues in another post. Thank you for all your hard work.

  3. I’ve already received several emails asking for more information on related evidence and had one phone call with a sharp reader who strenuously asserted that Streater is really a “consistent with” as opposed to an “in fact” abuse case. Thanks for the feedback–a follow up post is coming!

  4. Your article was very helpful information, thank you. Many years ago I was accused of a hideous crime. There of course was no physical evidence. Years later I became a master’s level professional counselor. There are always issues within the profession of how do we help people make their decisions effectively and without bias. This goes for both perpetrators and victims. I think your clarification helps us on both sides of the issue. Further, I can see where it will help us in help people who may be innocent to make decision about the legal process as well as for victims who wish to withdraw their charge. The variables are many and complex. Thanks for the help in adding more clear information to our tool boxes for all. I would look forward to reading more on the issues. Certainly if you have any thoughts about my note, I would appreciate the input.

  5. Has there been any latest updates with registration regarding indecent liberties with a student?

  6. What about a forensic examination by a independent psychologist hired for DSS when no physical evidence ?

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.