State v. Batangan
799 P.2d 48 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An expert witness in a child sexual abuse case may not offer an opinion, either directly or implicitly, on the credibility or truthfulness of the complaining witness. Expert testimony is admissible only to assist the jury in understanding general behavioral patterns of child abuse victims that are outside the common experience of jurors, such as delayed reporting or recantation.
Facts:
- Felomino Batangan's daughter (Complainant) alleged that when she was 6 or 7 years old, Batangan performed sexual acts on her on four or five occasions.
- The Complainant was unable to provide specific dates or distinguish between the alleged incidents.
- There were no third-party witnesses to the alleged incidents and no evidence of physical injury.
- Several months after the alleged abuse, the Complainant first reported to school authorities that Batangan had physically abused her.
- When no physical injuries were found, she admitted to lying about the physical abuse but then accused Batangan of sexual abuse.
- Subsequently, the Complainant recanted her allegations of sexual abuse.
- At trial, the Complainant again testified that Batangan had sexually abused her.
Procedural Posture:
- Felomino Batangan was indicted on one count of second degree rape and one count of first degree sexual abuse.
- At the first trial in the trial court, Batangan was acquitted of the rape charge.
- A mistrial was declared on the sexual abuse charge after the jury was unable to reach a verdict (hung jury).
- The State retried Batangan on the sexual abuse charge in the trial court.
- The trial court, over Batangan's objection, admitted the expert testimony of Dr. John Bond regarding the complainant's credibility.
- The jury returned a verdict convicting Batangan of first degree sexual abuse.
- Batangan (appellant) appealed his conviction to the Supreme Court of Hawaii, arguing the trial court erred by admitting the expert's testimony.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does expert testimony that implicitly vouches for the credibility of a child complainant in a sexual abuse trial constitute inadmissible evidence that usurps the jury's function of assessing witness credibility?
Opinions:
Majority - Wakatsuki, J.
Yes. Expert testimony that implicitly vouches for the credibility of a child complainant is inadmissible because it usurps the jury's core function of assessing witness credibility. The court reasoned that while Hawaii Rules of Evidence (HRE) Rule 702 permits expert testimony to assist the trier of fact, testimony on a witness's credibility generally falls within the jury's common experience. Because expert testimony carries an 'aura of special reliability,' there is a significant danger that jurors will abdicate their role and simply defer to the expert's conclusion. While an exception allows experts in child abuse cases to explain general behavioral patterns outside a jury's common knowledge (e.g., delayed reporting, recantation), this testimony is meant to dispel myths, not to opine on the specific victim's truthfulness. Testimony that effectively tells the jury who to believe, as Dr. Bond's did, invades the province of the jury and is not helpful to them. The court explicitly overruled its prior holding in State v. Kim to the extent it was inconsistent with this ruling.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the scope of permissible expert testimony in child sexual abuse cases in Hawaii, overruling the prior precedent of State v. Kim. It aligns Hawaii with the majority of jurisdictions that strictly prohibit experts from opining on a witness's credibility. The ruling reinforces the fundamental principle that the jury is the sole arbiter of witness credibility, protecting against the undue influence of expert opinions on this core issue. Future prosecutions and defenses in such cases must carefully distinguish between permissible testimony on general behavioral syndromes and impermissible testimony that vouches for a specific victim's truthfulness.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Batangan