# 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/9777606

## 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 Mansfield
- **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/9777606

## 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

MANSFIELD, Judge,
concurring.
I have strong doubts as to whether a social worker or a psychologist has the expertise to give a reliable opinion as to whether any witness—much less a child witness—is fantasizing or being manipulated. Given that such opinion testimony is essentially educated guesswork rather than based on quantifiable true science, I believe that we need to place strict limitations on the use of such testimony at criminal trials in Texas. See Tex.R.Crim. Evid. 702, 703. I also believe that any testimony relating to so-called “repressed memory syndrome” is inherently suspect and should not be admissible in Texas courtrooms.
With these comments, I join the opinion of the Court.
PRICE, J., joins.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9777606. Public record. Not legal advice.