Oregon Supreme Ct - Nov 17, 2016
by: Sara Werboff • November 18, 2016 • no comments
Expert Testimony - Trial Court Did Not Err in Excluding Testimony Concerning Defendant's Adjustment Disorder as Unhelpful to the Jury
The court affirms defendant’s first-degree sexual abuse conviction holding that the trial court properly excluded expert testimony on the ground that it was not helpful to the jury. Defendant’s case theory was that he accidentally touched the front of his daughter M’s diaper and because of his adjustment disorder obsessively ruminated on it, became overwhelmed by the stress, and confessed to having a sexual purpose. Defendant made statements to his wife – both oral and written – and to police. Before trial, the state sought to exclude under OEC 702 defendant’s therapist, Dr. Callum. In an offer of proof, Dr. Callum explained that she diagnosed defendant with an adjustment disorder. Defendant’s mental health condition caused him to ruminate and become obsessive. Dr. Callum testified “In regard to that confession, I would factor my knowledge about him, about his adjustment, * * * his high degree of distress * * * and whether he’s confessing to something out of distress, that’s within the realm of possibility.” The trial court concluded that there was no nexus between Dr. Callum’s diagnosis and the defense in this case and excluded the evidence. At trial, the state introduced defendant’s statements. Defendant also testified, and his testimony contradicted parts of Dr. Callum’s pretrial testimony. The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that evidence of defendant’s adjustment disorder would explain his highly unusual reaction to an accidental touching.
The court first resolves a dispute about the standard of review, agreeing with defendant that the court reviews for legal error, not abuse of discretion, because the helpfulness inquiry here – whether Callum’s testimony sufficiently related to a fact in issue in the case – is essentially a relevance inquiry which leads to only one correct answer.
The court then concludes that Callum’s testimony was inadmissible. Callum testified only that it was in the realm of possibility that defendant confessed out of stress. “She did not testify that defendant’s disorder can produce confessions that are not genuine, nor did she provide any indicia that the jury could use to draw a reasonable inference that his admissions were not actual confessions. And, defendant did not proffer any other evidence from which the jury could have drawn that inference. In sum, because defendant did not connect the facets of his adjustment disorder with the conditional fact he wanted the jury to infer, the jury would have been left to speculate about the existence of a connection between that testimony and the issue of fact whether defendant touched M with a culpable mental state.”
State v. Jesse, 360 Or 584 (2016) (Brewer, J.)
