# State v. Ballard

> Tennessee Supreme Court · May 24, 1993 · 855 S.W.2d 557

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666911

## Case

- **Full name:** STATE of Tennessee, Appellant/ Appellee, v. Frances Lucindy BALLARD, Appellee/Appellant
- **Court:** Tennessee Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 24, 1993
- **Citations:** 855 S.W.2d 557; 1993 Tenn. LEXIS 193
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Daughtrey
- **Judges:** O'Brien, Reid, Drowota, Anderson, Daughtrey
- **Cited by:** 771 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666911

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that an appellate court is precluded from considering issues for which the appellant has failed to ensure that the record “conveys a fair, accurate, and complete account of what transpired with respect to the issues forming the basis of the appeal”
- stating that the "purpose of determining competency of the witness in child sexual abuse cases is to allow a victim to testify if it can be determined that the child understands the necessity of telling the truth while on the stand"
- holding that expert testimony that the victims exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome generally found in child sex abuse victims “invades the province of the jury to decide on the credibility of the witness”
- holding that expert testimony that a victim “exhibit[ed] behavior consistent with post-traumatic stress syndrome, brought on by sexual abuse,” improperly invaded the province of the jury to decide credibility
- holding that expert testimony concerning symptoms of post-traumatic stress syndrome exhibited by victims of child abuse invades the province of the jury in making its own determination of credibility

## Opinion text

DAUGHTREY, Justice,
concurring.
In ruling the expert testimony offered in this case to be inadmissible, the majority cites as authority the Court of Criminal Appeals decision in State v. Schimpf, 782 S.W.2d 186 (Tenn.Crim.App.1989). For the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Schimpf, id. at 196-199 , I continue to believe that certain kinds of expert testimony concerning the diagnosis of child sexual abuse should be considered admissible, especially in light of the promulgation of Rules 702 and 704 of the Tennessee Rules of Evidence. Because I also believe that the majority opinion brushes with too broad a stroke in invalidating any and all such expert testimony, even though I agree that Dr. Luscomb’s testimony may have been too general to be of assistance to the jury that heard this case, I concur only in the result reached by the majority.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9666911. Public record. Not legal advice.