holding that testimony of child abuse investigator (who interviewed victim) that only one child had lied to her about sexual abuse in her sixteen-year career and reference to a study finding only one in 2,500 children falsely reported sexual abuse should have been excluded because it “improperly suggest[ed] the complainant was telling the truth and, consequently, the defendant was guilty”
How later courts described this case
- holding that testimony of child abuse investigator (who interviewed victim) that only one child had lied to her about sexual abuse in her sixteen-year career and reference to a study finding only one in 2,500 children falsely reported sexual abuse should have been excluded because it “improperly suggest[ed] the complainant was telling the truth and, consequently, the defendant was guilty”
- holding that it was erroneous for the prosecution to elicit testimony from a child abuse investigator that only one child had lied to her about being sexually abused in her 16 years of employment
- reversing admission of expert testimony that included a statement that “out of about . . . 75 cases, there was only one . . . where the child was not telling the truth” and “one in 2500 children . . . did not tell the truth, which would make it exceedingly rare”
- holding that testimony of child abuse investigator (who interviewed victim
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
WOLLE, Justice
(dissenting).
I would affirm the defendant’s conviction. The sole evidentiary question preserved for this appeal was whether the trial court was required by Iowa Rule of Evidence 702 to exclude the testimony of two persons whom the defendant concedes were qualified to testify as experts. In my view, the testimony of those two witnesses did not amount to the expression of an opinion on the ultimate fact of defendant’s guilt or innocence. They did not express an opinion on an essential element of the crime charged. Neither did they express an opinion on the credibility of the female victim herself.
I would leave to the discretion of the trial court the determination whether their testimony would be helpful to the jury in performing its function, the critical rule 702 test. State v. Halstead, 362 N.W.2d 504, 506 (Iowa 1985). I find no abuse of that discretion in the trial court’s overruling of defendant’s rule 702 objection.