holding that a medical diagnosis of sexual abuse was admissible even absent cor- roborating physical evidence
How later courts described this case
- holding that a medical diagnosis of sexual abuse was admissible even absent cor- roborating physical evidence
- concluding that diagnosis was scientific evidence that required foundation prescribed by Brown , but holding that an appropriate foundation had been laid in the trial court
- concluding that diagnosis was not scientific evidence that required foundation set out in State v. Brown , 297 Or. 404, 687 P.2d 751 (1984)
- rejecting argument that diagno- sis of sexual abuse was scientific evidence and inadmissible because it “operates as a low-tech polygraph impermissibly assessing the credibility of a witness” (internal quotation marks omitted)
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WARREN, J.,
concurring.
I agree with the majority that this is not “scientific evidence” within the meaning of State v. Brown, 297 Or 404 , 687 P2d 751 (1984). I continue to believe that the Brown test should apply only when the methodology for gathering scientific evidence is novel. State v. Stafford, 157 Or App 445, 467 , 972 P2d 47 (1998) (Warren, J., concurring).