# People v. Peterson

> Michigan Supreme Court · August 22, 1995 · 450 Mich. 349

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9850893

## Case

- **Full name:** People v. Peterson; People v. Smith
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 22, 1995
- **Citations:** 450 Mich. 349; 537 N.W.2d 857
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Brickley
- **Judges:** Brickley, Boyle, Riley, Weaver, Mallett, Levin, Cavanagh
- **Cited by:** 192 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/9850893

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- concluding that testimony from expert witnesses in regard to “the consistencies between the victim’s behavior and the behavior of typical victims of child sexual abuse” was erroneous “[b]ecause the defendant never argued that the victim’s behavior was inconsistent with that of…
- holding that an expert generally “may not testify that the particular child victim’s behavior is consistent with that of a sexually abused child” because doing so “comes too close to testifying that the particular child is a victim of sexual abuse”
- describing two expert witnesses who testified for the prosecution about the veracity of victim allegations in child sex abuse cases: “Certainly neither witness stated that the child victim was telling the truth. However, the risk here goes beyond such a direct reference. Indee…
- affirming that “an expert may not give an opinion whether the complainant is being truthful or whether the defendant is guilty” and that “an 2 expert may not testify that the particular child victim’s behavior is consistent with that of a sexually abused child”

## Opinion text

Brickley, C.J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the rationale of the majority opinion, and in the holding in People v Smith. I dissent from the holding in People v Peterson, because I do not agree that the error was harmless.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9850893. Public record. Not legal advice.