# Schutz v. State

> Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas · December 3, 1997 · 957 S.W.2d 52

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777605

## Case

- **Full name:** Ben Wayne SCHUTZ, Appellant, v. the STATE of Texas, Appellee
- **Court:** Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas
- **Decided:** December 3, 1997
- **Citations:** 957 S.W.2d 52; 1997 Tex. Crim. App. LEXIS 105; 1997 WL 742332
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Baird
- **Judges:** Keller, McCormick, Mansfield, Price, Holland, Womack, Overstreet, Baird, Meyers
- **Cited by:** 363 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/9777605

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding testimony that complainant did not exhibit evidence of fantasizing and thus manipulation was a less likely explanation for complainant's allegations, and that complainant's allegations were not result of fantasy constituted direct comments on truth of allegations
- holding testimony that complainant did not exhibit evidence of fantasizing, that manipulation was less likely explanation for complainant's allegations, and that complainant's allegations were not result of fantasy constituted direct comments on truth of allegations
- holding that a doctor and social worker were able to testify that the child complainant of sexual abuse did not exhibit the classic traits of manipulation because the jury did not share the experts’ qualifications in determining the traits of such manipulation
- holding that otherwise inadmissible 19 evidence may be admitted if the party against whom the evidence is admitted opens the door, provided that the party offering the evidence does not “stray beyond the scope of the invitation.”
- concluding that expert witnesses provided inadmissible testimony that it was “less likely” that child complainant had been manipulated into making her allegations and that her allegations were not result of fantasy

## Opinion text

*77 BAIRD, Judge,
concurring.
Issues of manipulation and fantasy are ultimately issues of truthfulness. The questions of whether an expert can testify as to the truthfulness of a particular child or children as a class were answered by Yount v. State, 872 S.W.2d 706, 710 (Tex.Cr.App.1993). As to an individual child, we specifically held: “[E]xpert testimony that a particular witness is truthful is inadmissible under [Tex.R.Crim. Evid.] 702.” Id., 872 S.W.2d at 711 . As to children as a class we held:
... A number of courts faced with testimony as to the truthfulness of a class of persons to which the complainant belongs have concluded that such testimony is tantamount to direct testimony that the complainant would not lie ... We agree. An expert who testifies that a class of persons to which the victim belongs is truthful is essentially telling the jury that they can believe the victim in the instant case as well. This is not “expert” testimony of the kind which will assist the jury under Rule 702.
Yount, 872 S.W.2d at 711 . 1 So there would be absolutely no confusion, the Yount opinion concluded: “We hold that Rule 702 does not permit an expert to give an opinion that the complainant or a class of persons to which the complainant belongs is truthful.” Id., 872 S.W.2d at 712 . Therefore, Yount is the controlling authority and the only citation necessary to resolve this case.
Nevertheless, the majority both relies upon Yount to resolve the case and rejects Yount by stating:
... [w]hen an “impaired” witness or de-clarant is expected to testify, expert testimony should be permitted in the offering party’s case-in-chief concerning the ability of the class of persons suffering the “impairment” to distinguish reality from fantasy and to pei’ceive, remember, and relate the kinds of events at issue in the case.
Ante, at 70, (emphasis in original).
The majority’s discussion regarding the admission of expert testimony about a “class” of persons is contrary to Yount , which is settled and controlling authority on that issue. Moreover, the aforementioned passage from the majority opinion is dicta because this Court did not grant review on that issue. 2 For the majority to go beyond what this Court agreed to hear has no precedential value.
For the reasons stated in Yount , I join only the judgment of the Court.
MEYERS, J., joins this opinion.
. All emphasis is supplied unless otherwise indicated.
. Review was granted on whether the Court of Appeals erroneously decided that the trial court may allow a social worker and a psychologist to testify that the complainant’s testimony was not the result of manipulation or fantasy.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777605. Public record. Not legal advice.