State v. Scott

• Decision Date: 23 January 2009
• Docket Number: No. M2007-02024-SC-S09-CO.,M2007-02024-SC-S09-CO.
• Citation: 275 S.W.3d 395
• Parties: STATE of Tennessee v. Adrian L. SCOTT.
• Court: Tennessee Supreme Court

275 S.W.3d 395

STATE of Tennessee v. Adrian L. SCOTT.

No. M2007-02024-SC-S09-CO.

Supreme Court of Tennessee, at Nashville.

October 2, 2008 Session Heard at Nashville.¹

January 23, 2009.

Jeffery S. Frensley, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Adrian L. Scott.

Robert E. Cooper, Jr., Attorney General and Reporter; Michael E. Moore, Solicitor General; and Preston Shipp, Assistant Attorney General (on appeal); Victor S. Johnson III, District Attorney General and J.W. Hupp, Assistant District Attorney General (at trial), for the appellee, State of Tennessee.

OPINION

WILLIAM C. KOCH, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which JANICE M. HOLDER, C.J., CORNELIA A. CLARK, and GARY R. WADE, JJ., and E. RILEY ANDERSON, SP.J., joined.

This appeal involves the admissibility of expert testimony regarding a sleep parasomnia involving sexual behavior. A defendant charged with committing sexual acts with his stepdaughter asserted that he could not have formed the required criminal intent because he was asleep at the time and was unaware of what he was doing. To support his defense, the defendant notified the State that he intended to present the testimony of a physician who had diagnosed him as having sleep parasomnia involving sexual behavior. The Criminal Court for Davidson County granted the State's motion to exclude the physician's testimony because it was not sufficiently trustworthy and reliable to be presented to the jury. However, the trial court also granted the defendant permission to pursue a Tenn. R.App. P. 9 interlocutory appeal. After the Court of Criminal Appeals declined to hear the appeal, we granted the defendant's Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application to address whether the trial court had properly discharged its gate-keeping responsibilities with regard to the proffered expert evidence. We have determined that the trial court erred by excluding the physician's testimony regarding sleep parasomnia.

I.

On May 15, 2006, a Davidson County grand jury returned a five-count indictment against Adrian Leroy Scott for alleged criminal sexual contact between Mr. Scott and his stepdaughter who at the time was a minor between thirteen and eighteen years of age. Mr. Scott was charged with three counts of sexual battery by an authority figure in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-527 (2006) and two counts of rape in violation of Tenn.Code Ann. § 39-13-503 (2006).

Mr. Scott, through his attorney, advised the State that he intended to call an expert witness in his defense and provided the State with a report from Dr. J. Brevard Haynes, the Medical Director of the Saint Thomas Health Services Center for Sleep. Dr. Haynes concluded that, in his opinion, "sexual behavior in sleep parasomnia is the explanation for [Mr. Scott's] touching of his stepdaughter." The State filed a pre-trial motion in the Criminal Court for Davidson County to exclude this testimony.

Following a hearing on June 27, 2007, the trial court entered an order excluding Dr. Haynes's testimony on two grounds. First, the trial court concluded that "intent is not an element of either offense. Therefore, the information which the defendant seeks to admit through Dr. Haynes as an explanation of the alleged conduct does not aid the jury in an understanding of the offense." Second, the trial court, without elaboration or explanation, found that the "methodology and principles underlying the scientific evidence are not sufficiently trustworthy and reliable to be presented to the trier of fact." Mr. Scott promptly requested the trial court to reconsider its ruling. The trial court denied his motion on August 8, 2007.

Two days later, on August 10, 2007, Mr. Scott filed an application in the trial court for permission to appeal in accordance with Tenn. R.App. P. 9. The trial court granted the motion in an order entered on August 31, 2007. However, on October 10, 2007, the Court of Criminal Appeals denied Mr. Smith's application for an interlocutory appeal. Mr. Smith filed a timely Tenn. R.App. P. 11 application, and on January 28, 2008, we granted Mr. Smith's application for permission to appeal.

Before this Court, Mr. Scott renews his assertion that the trial court erred by excluding Dr. Haynes's testimony. Specifically, he asserts that the trial court erred by finding that the offenses with which he was charged did not have a mens rea requirement. He also asserts that the trial court erred by concluding that Dr. Haynes's opinion regarding sleep parasomnia was based on unreliable scientific methodologies and principles.

The State concedes that the offenses with which Mr. Scott was charged "require the showing of a culpable mental state" and, therefore, that "the trial court's apparent belief that the charged offenses do not have a requisite mental element is erroneous." However, the State insists that the trial court's decision to exclude Dr. Haynes's testimony was correct because it would not have assisted the jury because the testimony was not sufficiently reliable and "a jury would not require an expert to tell them that a person cannot act intentionally while he or she is asleep; it is a matter of common sense." For good measure, the State also asserts that the Court of Criminal Appeals properly denied Mr. Scott's Tenn. R.App. P. 9 application for an interlocutory appeal.²

II.

Mr. Scott contends the criminal court erred by concluding that there is no mens rea element of either rape or sexual battery by an authority figure and, accordingly, by excluding Dr. Haynes's testimony on this basis. The State concedes the criminal court erred in reaching this conclusion. The State further concedes that whether Mr. Scott was asleep or awake plainly impacts the sexual battery by an authority figure charges, which require a showing of intentional touching for the purpose of sexual gratification, and the rape charges, which require a showing that Mr. Scott acted with intent, knowledge, or recklessness. The State's concession accurately, though incompletely, defines the mental state required for each of these offenses.³ We agree that the trial court erred by determining that Mr. Scott's mental state was irrelevant and excluding Dr. Haynes's testimony on this basis.

III.

Mr. Scott asserts that the trial court erred by excluding Dr. Haynes's testimony on the ground that the methods and principles on which it is based are not sufficiently reliable or trustworthy to be presented to a jury. The State disagrees because Dr. Haynes's opinion is based "almost exclusively" on Mr. Scott's descriptions of his own history. We have determined that the trial court erred by concluding that Dr. Haynes's testimony was not sufficiently reliable or trustworthy to substantially assist the trier of fact.

A.

Trial courts act as gatekeepers when it comes to the admissibility of expert testimony. State v. Copeland, 226 S.W.3d 287, 300-01 (Tenn.2007); Johnson v. John Hancock Funds, 217 S.W.3d 414, 425 (Tenn.Ct.App.2006). Their role "is to ensure that `an expert, whether basing testimony upon professional studies or personal experience, employs in the courtroom the same level of intellectual rigor that characterizes the practice of an expert in the relevant field.'" Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d 268, 275 (Tenn. 2005) (quoting Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137, 152, 119 S.Ct. 1167, 143 L.Ed.2d 238 (1999)). A court "must assure itself that the [expert's] opinions are based on relevant scientific methods, processes, and data, and not upon an expert's mere speculation." McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d 257, 265 (Tenn.1997). The court's reliability analysis has four general inter-related components: (1) qualifications assessment, (2) analytical cohesion, (3) methodological reliability, and (4) foundational reliability.

When assessing the admissibility of expert testimony, the trial court must first determine whether the witness is qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education to express an opinion within the limits of his or her expertise. State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d 817, 834 (Tenn.2002). This determination hinges upon whether the proposed expert's qualifications authorize him or her to give an informed opinion upon the fact or issue for which his or her testimony is being proffered. State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d at 834. A court is, in essence, asking whether the witness is an expert, either through knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education, in the area in which he or she is providing testimony. Tenn. R. Evid. 702.

However, the court's inquiry into whether expert testimony is sufficiently reliable does not end when a trial court concludes that the witness is, in fact, an expert in the area in which he or she proposes to testify. Ipse dixit assertions were insufficient to support the contentions of the Pythagoreans,⁴ and they remain so with regard to appeals to the authority of a modern expert as a sole basis for admission. Just because an expert is speaking does not make what he or she is saying sufficiently reliable to be admitted into evidence as expert testimony. Brown v. Crown Equip. Corp., 181 S.W.3d at 274. The courts "must analyze the science and not merely the qualifications [of the expert]." McDaniel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 955 S.W.2d at 265.

Analyzing the science requires the trial court to consider whether the "basis for the witness's opinion, i.e., testing, research, studies, or experience-based observations, adequately supports that expert's conclusions" to ensure that there is not a significant analytical gap between the expert's opinion and the data upon which the opinion is based. State v. Stevens, 78 S.W.3d at 834-35. As part of this analysis, the courts should consider how and why the expert was able to extrapolate from certain data to the conclusions that he or she has reached. Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136, 144-46, 118 S.Ct. 512 139 L.Ed.2d 508 (1997).⁵ When assessing the connection between an...