OHIO: The defendant was convicted of endangering a child, a sixteen-year-old mentally handicapped boy, whom he assaulted during an argument. At the trial, various experts—including the handicapped boy's teacher and a clinical psychologist who evaluated him after the incident—were allowed to testify as to the victim's truthfulness in general. The Court of Appeals of Ohio, Sixth District, held that the testimony should have been excluded, and that defense counsel's failure to object to it amounted to ineffective assistance. State v. Edwards, 702 N.E.2d 1242.
WASHINGTON: The defendant, who was charged with second degree criminal mischief, was found incompetent to stand trial by the superior court and committed to a hospital for 90 days, or until such time as he became competent to stand trial. The Court of Appeals of Washington held that the initial determination of incompetency, and the order of commitment, were not appealable as of right. Nor was the order subject to discretionary review, since the Appeals Court concluded that the superior court did not commit probable error in finding the defendant incompetent. State v. Swain, 968 P.2d 412.
A claimant sought time loss payments under the Crime Victims Compensation Act when she recalled a repressed memory of sexual molestation that had occurred 23 years earlier when she was five years old. She reported her recollection to a psychologist, who diagnosed her as suffering from posttraumatic stress disorder resulting from the molestation, and for a time, had to stop working as a school bus driver. The Court of Appeals of Washington, Division 1, held that she was not eligible for the payments because she was not gainfully employed at the time of the criminal act. Department of Labor & Industries v. Denny, 969 .P2d 525
DELAWARE: The Superior Court of Delaware held that the trial court properly excluded a psychologist's testimony concerning the propensity of children, who are the subject of parental custody and visitation conflicts, to falsify allegations of abuse. The defendant was convicted of unlawful sexual intercourse and other sex offenses involving his seven-year-old daughter and her ten-year-old friend. The Court said that the intrafamily child abuse exception to the general rule, that such expert testimony wasn't necessary to assist the jury, didn't apply in this case. The court added that there was no behavior by the alleged victims inconsistent with sexual abuse, such as recantation or delay in reporting. Floray v. State, 720 A.2d 1132.
TEXAS: The defendant was tried and convicted of capital murder in 1985, and at sentencing, the trial court allowed a psychiatrist, James Grigson, M.D. to testify for the prosecution regarding the defendant's potential for future dangerousness, based on a hypothetical set of facts. On a federal habeas corpus petition, the United States Court of Appeals, Fifth Circuit, held that the testimony was admissible. Little v. Johnson, 162 F.3d 855.
GEORGIA: A defendant convicted of capital murder claimed on appeal that trial counsel had been ineffective, both in preparing his psychologist expert, who gave testimony on mitigation, and in failing to object to improper cross examination of the expert about specific instances of professional misconduct. But the Supreme Court of Georgia held that counsel's preparation was not ineffective, even though the expert was unable to recall a portion of the defendant's statement to the police when testifying. The Court also held that counsel was not ineffective in failing to object to the cross examination, in that it was a reasonable tactical decision based on the conclusion that the prosecutor was hurting the case by picking on the defense psychologist. Henry v. State, 507 S.E. 2d 419.
MONTANA: A defendant was convicted of incest involving his fifteen-year- old stepdaughter. At trial, the District Court allowed the State to present the testimony of a licensed professional counselor, who had not investigated the case, so long as the testimony was limited to general matters concerning child sexual abuse. The Supreme Court of Montana upheld the admission of the testimony, finding that the witness could assist the jury's understanding of child sexual abuse, and did not improperly bolster or confirm the victim's account of the incident. State v. Morgan, 968 P.2d 1120.
NEW YORK: An insanity acquittee, who had been charged with making threatening and obscene telephone calls, was confined to a secure facility following a determination that he suffers from a "dangerous mental disorder". At a rehearing of the County Court's first retention order, the court permitted the jury to determine that the acquittee suffers from a mental illness, but made its own determination that he suffers from a dangerous mental disorder, requiring secure detention. The Appellate Division, Fourth Department, held that under the Mental Hygiene Law, an insanity acquittee has a right to a jury determination only as to whether he is mentally ill, but not as to whether he suffers from a dangerous mental disorder. Barber v. Rochester Psychiatric Center, 680 N.Y.S. 2d 773.
