State v. Miller
| Decision Date | 03 December 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. C0-85-759,C0-85-759 |
| Citation | 377 N.W.2d 506 |
| Parties | STATE of Minnesota, Respondent, v. Clarence MILLER, Appellant. |
| Court | Minnesota Court of Appeals |
Syllabus by the Court
In prosecution for criminal sexual conduct in the second degree the trial court committed reversible err in admitting expert's opinion that the complaining witness was telling the truth.
Hubert H. Humphrey, III, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Stanich, Sp. Asst. Atty. Gen., St. Paul, Ann L. Carrott, Douglas County Atty., Alexandria, for respondent.
C. Paul Jones, State Public Defender, Kathy King, Asst. Public Defender, Minneapolis, for appellant.
Considered and decided by POPOVICH, C.J., and LESLIE and NIERENGARTEN, JJ., with oral argument waived.
Appellant Clarence Miller was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree, Minn.Stat. § 609.343(a) (1984), for having sexual contact with a 12-year old girl. On appeal he contends the trial court committed reversible error in admitting expert testimony that the complainant's allegations were truthful. He also contends the trial court should have compelled the complainant to submit to a psychological examination and that the prosecutor committed prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument. We reverse and remand for new trial.
J.S., 12 years old, and Miller's daughter were called by Miller to his fish house/workshop. Miller sent his daughter away on an errand, grabbed J.S. and kissed her. After Miller's daughter returned the two girls went outside and again were called by Miller who sent out his daughter on another errand. Miller then grabbed J.S., kissed her, and placed his hand down her blouse and squeezed her breast. J.S. told Miller's daughter what happened and the daughter replied, "Oh no, not again." The two girls were called back a third time and after sending his daughter out Miller asked J.S. if she liked him and kissed her.
Six months later, J.S. told her sister about the incident and later reported the incident to her step-mother.
In January 1984 J.S. reported the incident to the school psychologist, adding that after Miller put his hand down her shirt, she resisted, screamed and ran away. The psychologist contacted social services and an employee interviewed J.S. who told her Miller grabbed and kissed her three times and touched her breast on the first occasion. The employee reported to law enforcement officials and a complaint was subsequently filed charging Miller with criminal sexual conduct in the second degree.
At trial Miller's daughter did not remember J.S. telling her that Miller grabbed her. The psychologist, qualified as an expert on psychology and sexually abused children, over objection, gave his opinion that J.S.'s report was credible and he believed her. Miller did not testify but called three of J.S.'s classmates who testified to her reputation for being untruthful.
Miller was convicted of criminal sexual conduct in the second degree. He was sentenced to 21 months, execution stayed, and was placed on probation for 15 years.
1. Did the trial court commit reversible error in admitting expert testimony regarding the truthfulness of the child victim's allegations of sexual contact?
2. Did the trial court err in failing to order the complainant to submit to a psychological examination?
3. Did the prosecutor commit prosecutorial misconduct in closing argument?
Miller contends the court committed reversible error in admitting, over objection, the psychologist opinion regarding J.S.' truthfulness. He is correct. This opinion invaded the province of the jury. It is for the jury to make credibility determinations. State v. Saldana, 324 N.W.2d 227, 231 (Minn.1982).
In Saldana, the supreme court held that an expert's opinion that an adult complainant was a victim of rape and that she had not fantasized the rape was reversible error. In that case, the "expert" was a sexual assault counselor who held a bachelor's degree in psychology and social work and directed the Victim Assistance Program in Mankato. With regard to the expert's opinion that a rape had occurred, the court stated:
Because the jurors were equally capable of considering the evidence and determining whether a rape occurred, Dreyer's opinion was not helpful. Her testimony was a legal conclusion which was of no use to the jury. Furthermore, the danger of unfair prejudice outweighed any probative value. Dreyer's testimony "gave a stamp of scientific legitimacy to the truth of the complaining witness's factual testimony." People v. Izzo, 90 Mich.App. 727, 730, 282 N.W.2d 10, 11 (1979).
Here, the psychologist did not have such training or experience as would qualify him as an expert on the truthfulness of another's statements. He is a licensed...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
McCafferty v. Solem
... Page 590 ... 449 N.W.2d 590 ... Bruce McCAFFERTY, Petitioner and Appellee, ... Herman SOLEM, Warden, South Dakota State Penitentiary, ... Respondent and Appellant ... Nos. 16121, 16137 ... Supreme Court of South Dakota ... Considered on Briefs Aug. 29, 1988 ... WUEST, C.J., and MILLER, J., concur ... HENDERSON and SABERS, JJ., dissent ... HENDERSON, Justice (dissenting) ... ...
-
State v. J.Q.
...(1990); State v. Jackson, 239 Kan. 463, 470, 721 P.2d 232, 238 (1986); People v. Beckley, supra, 456 N.W.2d at 407; State v. Miller, 377 N.W.2d 506 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); State v. Newman, 109 N.M. 263, 784 P.2d 1006 (Ct.App.), cert. denied, 109 N.M. 262, 784 P.2d 1005 (1989); State v. Bailey, ......
-
Goodson v. State
...Kan. 463, 470, 721 P.2d 232, 238 (1986); People v. Reinhardt, 167 Mich.App. 584, 596, 423 N.W.2d 275, 282 (1988); State v. Miller, 377 N.W.2d 506, 508 (Minn.Ct.App.1985); State v. Bailey, 89 N.C.App. 212, 219, 365 S.E.2d 651, 655 (1988); State v. Holloway, 82 N.C.App. 586, 587, 347 S.E.2d 7......
-
Schutz v. State
...did not control the case and that cross-examination of the complainant did not open the door to expert testimony. State v. Miller, 377 N.W.2d 506, 509 (Minn.App.1985). On the other hand, a Texas Court of Appeals held that the defense opened the door to testimony as to the truth of allegatio......