## Facts

- Felomino Batangan was accused of sexually abusing his young daughter on four or five occasions when she was about six or seven years old.
- The child could not give specific dates or distinguish the alleged acts by incident; there were no third-party witnesses and no physical-injury evidence.
- The child initially reported physical abuse to school authorities; after no injuries were found, she admitted that allegation was false and then accused Batangan of sexual abuse.
- The child later recanted the sexual abuse allegation but testified at trial that the abuse occurred.
- At the second trial, the State called a clinical psychologist who evaluated the child once, about three weeks before trial.
- The psychologist testified about behaviors of sexually abused children, described how he evaluates whether a child is telling the truth about sexual abuse, and then implicitly communicated that the child was believable and had been abused by Batangan.

## Issues

1. Whether, under Hawaiʻi Rule of Evidence 702, a child sexual abuse expert may give opinion testimony that directly or implicitly vouches for the credibility of the specific child complainant.
2. Whether admitting such credibility-vouching expert testimony improperly invades the jury’s role and requires reversal when the case turns largely on the complainant’s credibility.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court of Hawaiʻi held that the trial court erred by admitting the expert’s testimony insofar as it implicitly vouched for the complainant’s truthfulness and implied that abuse occurred.
- The court ruled the testimony inadmissible under HRE 702 because it did not merely assist the jury with matters beyond common understanding but instead unduly influenced the jury on credibility.
- The error was deemed clearly prejudicial given the limited corroborating evidence and the centrality of the complainant’s credibility.
- The conviction for first-degree sexual abuse was vacated and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- Under HRE 702, expert testimony is admissible only if it assists the trier of fact in understanding evidence or determining a fact in issue, typically by addressing matters outside ordinary lay knowledge.
- In child sexual abuse cases, experts may testify about general behavioral characteristics of victims (including delayed reporting and recantation) to provide context for conduct jurors may not readily understand.
- An expert generally may not testify about the credibility of a witness; credibility determinations are for the jury.
- Expert testimony is inadmissible when it directly or implicitly tells the jury that a particular witness is truthful or that the alleged abuse in fact occurred, because it usurps or unduly influences the jury’s role.
- Prior precedent permitting broader “credibility assessment” testimony in this setting was limited to the extent it allowed expert opinions on the truthfulness of a specific complainant.

## Conclusion

The court held that, while expert testimony may contextualize child-victim behavior beyond common experience, it cannot be used to validate the truthfulness of a particular child complainant or imply guilt; admitting such vouching testimony was prejudicial and required a new trial.


State v. Batangan, 71 Haw. 552, 799 P.2d 48 (Haw. 1990)