Background
The prosecution charged S.H.-S. with sexual assault on a child and unlawful sexual contact based on allegations by his cousin, Y.M. The alleged incident occurred when Y.M. was five or six and S.H.-S. was fifteen or sixteen. Y.M. disclosed it to her mother three years later and then participated in a forensic interview.
At trial, the jury watched the recorded interview, in which Y.M. promised to tell the truth. A forensic-interviewing expert testified that research indicates eliciting such a promise increases the truthfulness of children’s statements. Another expert testified that most child sexual-abuse victims delay disclosure. The jury adjudicated S.H.-S. delinquent, and the juvenile court imposed two years of supervised probation.
The Court’s Holding
The Court of Appeals held that the truth-promise testimony improperly bolstered Y.M.’s credibility. Because jurors knew Y.M. had made that promise immediately before describing the allegations, the expert’s testimony indirectly suggested that she had been truthful on that specific occasion, intruding on the jury’s responsibility to assess credibility. The defense’s challenges to inconsistencies in Y.M.’s account did not constitute an attack on her general character for truthfulness that would permit rehabilitation.
The preserved error was not harmless because Y.M.’s credibility was the central issue, and the prosecution identified no physical evidence or other eyewitness testimony. The limiting instruction did not cure the problem: it referred to an overruled bolstering objection and did not direct jurors to disregard the challenged testimony. The court separately held that testimony explaining that most child sexual-abuse victims delay disclosure was admissible because it helped the jury understand Y.M.’s delayed report rather than suggesting that her allegation was true.
Key Takeaways
- An expert may not directly or indirectly imply that a child witness was truthful on a particular occasion.
- Pointing out inconsistencies in a witness’s account does not, without more, attack the witness’s general character for truthfulness.
- Expert testimony about delayed disclosure may be admissible when it explains behavior commonly associated with child sexual abuse and does not quantify the likelihood that an allegation is true.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores the heightened danger of credibility-bolstering expert testimony in child sexual-assault cases, particularly when the verdict turns on the complainant’s firsthand account. Even brief testimony can require reversal when it effectively tells jurors how to evaluate the central witness and is not neutralized by a clear instruction.
The court reversed the delinquency adjudication and sentence and remanded the case for a new trial. It did not decide the challenge to testimony about prosecutorial screening or the cumulative-error claim.