Utah Court of Appeals
Can expert witnesses testify about the statistical likelihood of false abuse allegations? State v. Burnett Explained
Summary
Revere Burnett was convicted of multiple sexual abuse charges against his daughter after their divorce. At trial, a psychiatrist expert testified both about symptoms consistent with sexual abuse and about statistical methods for determining whether abuse allegations are truthful. The jury convicted Burnett on six of nine charges.
Practice Areas & Topics
Analysis
In State v. Burnett, the Utah Court of Appeals addressed the critical distinction between permissible expert testimony about sexual abuse symptoms and impermissible testimony that bolsters witness credibility through statistical evidence.
Background and Facts
Revere Burnett was convicted of multiple sexual abuse charges against his teenage daughter following their parents’ divorce. At trial, the state called Dr. David Corwin, a psychiatrist specializing in child sexual abuse cases. The expert testified on two main topics: symptoms commonly associated with sexual abuse victims, and methods he uses to distinguish truthful abuse allegations from fabricated ones. Crucially, the expert testified that only a “small percentage” of sexual abuse allegations are false, particularly in divorce contexts, and explained factors he considers when evaluating credibility. Defense counsel failed to object to any of this testimony.
Key Legal Issues
The case presented questions about the permissible scope of expert testimony in sexual abuse cases, particularly whether experts can offer statistical evidence about the likelihood of false allegations and methods for determining credibility. The court analyzed these issues under Rules 608 and 403 of the Utah Rules of Evidence, as well as ineffective assistance of counsel standards.
Court’s Analysis and Holding
The court distinguished between two types of expert testimony. First, testimony that symptoms are “consistent with” sexual abuse is generally admissible under State v. Kallin, as it helps the jury understand evidence beyond their ken without directly proving abuse occurred. However, the court found that testimony offering statistical probabilities about truthfulness crossed the line established in State v. Rammel. Such testimony “invites the jury to focus upon a seemingly scientific, numerical conclusion rather than to analyze the evidence before it and decide where truth lies.”
Practice Implications
The decision clarifies that while experts may testify about symptoms being consistent with abuse, they cannot offer credibility-bolstering testimony disguised as scientific methodology. Practitioners should object when experts testify about statistical frequencies of false allegations or purport to provide scientific methods for determining witness truthfulness. The court emphasized that even properly qualified experts cannot comment on whether a particular witness is likely telling the truth, as such testimony violates Rule 608’s prohibition on extrinsic evidence of character for truthfulness.
Case Details
Case Name
State v. Burnett
Citation
2018 UT App 80
Court
Utah Court of Appeals
Case Number
No. 20150684-CA
Date Decided
May 3, 2018
Outcome
Reversed
Holding
Trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object to expert testimony that improperly bolstered the victim’s credibility by offering statistical evidence about the frequency of false sexual abuse allegations and methods for distinguishing true from fabricated allegations.
Standard of Review
When a criminal defendant raises a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel for the first time on appeal, the court decides as a matter of law whether the defendant received constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel.
Practice Tip
Object to expert testimony that offers statistical probabilities about witness credibility or purports to provide scientific methods for determining truthfulness, as such testimony violates Rule 608 and Rule 403.
Need Appellate Counsel?
Lotus Appellate Law handles appeals before the Utah Court of Appeals, Utah Supreme Court, California Court of Appeal, and the United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit.
Related Court Opinions
About these Decision Summaries
Lotus Appellate Law publishes these summaries to keep practitioners informed — not as legal advice. Each case turns on its own facts. If a decision here is relevant to your matter, we’re happy to discuss it.