Sufficiency of Evidence – Expert Testimony

Listen to this article

WI Court of Appeals – District III

Case Name: State of Wisconsin v. Richard L. Pringle

Case No.: 2020AP6-CR

Officials: Stark, P.J., Hruz and Seidl, JJ.

Focus: Sufficiency of Evidence – Expert Testimony

Richard Pringle appeals a judgment convicting him of one count of second-degree sexual assault of a person who suffers from a mental illness or deficiency, contrary to WIS. STAT. § 940.225(2)(c) (2017-18). Pringle also appeals an order denying his motion for postconviction relief. Pringle argues he is entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice because the real controversy was not fully tried during his jury trial. Specifically, he contends that the State’s expert witness improperly vouched for the victim’s credibility, contrary to State v. Haseltine, 120 Wis. 2d 92, 352 N.W.2d 673 (Ct. App. 1984), and that the expert’s testimony therefore clouded a crucial issue in the case—namely, the victim’s credibility.

Although this is a close case, we ultimately conclude that Pringle is not entitled to a new trial in the interest of justice. The State’s expert witness testified, generally, that in her experience individuals with cognitive or developmental disabilities often lack the sophistication necessary to “feign a situation” or “concoct a story.” The expert witness did not expressly testify, however, that she believed the victim was telling the truth or that the victim, specifically, was incapable of fabricating her account of the sexual assault. On these facts, we conclude the effect of the expert witness’s testimony was not to attest to the victim’s truthfulness, and the testimony did not create too great a possibility that the jury abdicated its fact-finding role to the expert witness or failed to independently determine Pringle’s guilt. As such, we reject Pringle’s argument that the admission of the expert witness’s testimony prevented the real controversy from being fully tried. We therefore affirm Pringle’s judgment of conviction and the order denying postconviction relief.

Full Text

Derek A Hawkins is Associate Corporate Counsel, IP at Amazon.