Erroneous Exclusion of Defense Expert Testimony Challenging Protocols for Interviews of Child Victims of Sexual Abuse Requires New Trial

State v. Hakala, Minn.Ct.App., 3/31/2009.  This is an appeal from a criminal sexual conduct prosecution.  The victims are described as "pre-teens."  The social worker who interviewed the victims testified, emphasizing her credentials and the interview techniques that she employed.  The trial court would not permit the defense to call an expert to challenge the validity of those interview techniques and protocols.  The trial court thought that such testimony would send a signal to the jury that the children were not telling the truth and so excluded the testimony.  The appellate court reverses the conviction on the basis of this ruling and remands for a new trial.

The Minnesota Supreme Court long ago held that a juror's common experience is not adequate for assessing the credibility of a child's allegations of sexual abuse.  State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604 (Minn. 1984).  The helpfulness requirement for admission of expert testimony is thus satisfied.  In the Myers case, it was the state that sought to introduce expert testimony, which had the additional benefit of bolstering the child victim's credibility.  Turn about is fair game after all.  The trial court abused its discretion by excluding the expert testimony.

The error was also not harmless.  The social worker who interviewed the victims got to describe the interview techniques and protocols, implying that the statements were obtained by an expert who employed valid - and truthful - techniques.  The interviewer was thus a de facto expert witness; preventing the defense from presenting a contrary view of the techniques denied Mr. Hakala the opportunity to present a complete defense,and thus denied him a fair trial.  Consequently, the probative value of the defense expert's testimony outweighed any prejudicial effect, so both requirements for introduction of expert testimony were met.