## Facts

- J.Q. was accused of sexually abusing his two young daughters, Connie and Norma.
- The children disclosed the alleged abuse to their mother, who initially doubted the allegations but later reported them to law enforcement.
- Medical examinations of both children reported abnormal findings consistent with sexual abuse.
- At trial, both children testified; the defense argued the allegations were fabricated or influenced by the mother and highlighted delayed reporting and continued contact with the defendant.
- The State presented expert testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) to explain behaviors often seen in abused children (including secrecy, delayed reporting, and recantation).
- The expert not only described CSAAS traits but also applied them to the children and gave categorical opinions that the children had been sexually abused and were truthful.

## Issues

1. Whether CSAAS has a sufficiently reliable scientific basis to permit expert testimony explaining behavioral characteristics sometimes associated with child sexual abuse.
2. Whether an expert may use CSAAS testimony to opine on a child witness’s credibility or that sexual abuse in fact occurred.
3. Whether admitting such expert testimony, absent a proper objection, constituted plain error warranting reversal because it was capable of producing an unjust result.

## Decision

- The trial court convictions (aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child) were reversed by the Appellate Division, which ordered a new trial.
- The Supreme Court of New Jersey affirmed the order for a new trial.
- The Court held CSAAS testimony is generally admissible for a limited, explanatory purpose when relevant to rebut defenses grounded in “counterintuitive” victim behavior.
- The Court held it was error for the expert to comment on credibility and to opine that abuse occurred, because that improperly intruded on the jury’s factfinding role.
- The Court concluded the error was plain error because it was clearly capable of producing an unjust result in a case turning largely on the children’s credibility.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony on CSAAS may be admitted to explain behaviors of child sexual-abuse victims that jurors might view as inconsistent with abuse (e.g., secrecy, delayed reporting, continued contact), when tied to a specific defense or misconception.
- CSAAS evidence is not admissible to prove that sexual abuse occurred, to “diagnose” abuse, or to serve as a test for truthfulness.
- An expert may not directly or indirectly vouch for a witness’s credibility or give an opinion resolving the ultimate factual question of whether the alleged abuse happened when that determination depends on credibility judgments reserved to the jury.
- Under New Jersey plain-error review, admission of improper credibility-bolstering expert testimony warrants reversal when it is clearly capable of producing an unjust result.

## Conclusion

The Supreme Court of New Jersey permitted limited CSAAS testimony to help jurors understand certain victim behaviors but held that the State’s expert improperly vouched for the children and opined that abuse occurred; because that error was capable of affecting the verdict, the defendant was entitled to a new trial.


State v. J.Q., 617 A.2d 1196 (N.J. 1993)