STATE v. JENSEN: New Precedents on Expert Testimony Admissibility and Jury Room Confession Practices

STATE v. JENSEN: New Precedents on Expert Testimony Admissibility and Jury Room Confession Practices

Introduction

The case of State of Wisconsin, Plaintiff-Respondent, v. Lew Jensen, Defendant-Appellant-Petitioner (147 Wis. 2d 240) adjudicated by the Supreme Court of Wisconsin on December 16, 1988, presents significant developments in the realm of criminal law, particularly concerning the admissibility of expert testimony relating to victim behavior and the handling of written confessions in jury deliberations. Lew Jensen was convicted of sexual assault against his stepdaughter, L.J., an 11-year-old girl. The appellate challenges focused on two primary issues: the admissibility of expert testimony regarding the complainant's behavior and the inclusion of the defendant's written confession in the jury room during deliberations.

Summary of the Judgment

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin affirmed the Court of Appeals' decision, thereby upholding Lew Jensen's conviction for sexual assault and the denial of his motion for postconviction relief. The court addressed two critical contentions raised by Jensen:

  1. The admission of expert testimony suggesting that the complainant's behavior was consistent with that of child sexual abuse victims.
  2. The allowance of Jensen's written confession to be reviewed by the jury during deliberations.

The court concluded that the expert testimony did not equate to an opinion asserting the assault occurred or that the complainant was truthful, thus validating its admissibility. Additionally, the court overruled the previous rigid stance against including written confessions in jury deliberations, deeming its inclusion in this case as a discretionary and non-error decision.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

The judgment extensively references prior cases that shaped the court's reasoning:

  • STATE v. HASELTINE (120 Wis.2d 92): Established that expert opinions directly asserting the truthfulness of a witness are inadmissible.
  • STATE v. ROBINSON (146 Wis.2d 315): Affirmed the admissibility of expert testimony explaining victim behavior without directly asserting the occurrence of the crime.
  • STATE v. MORAN (151 Ariz. 378): Addressed the distinction between admissible expert observations and impermissible conclusions about a complainant's credibility.
  • State v. Payne (199 Wis. 615): Initially set a precedent against including written confessions in the jury room to prevent undue influence.

These cases collectively informed the court's evaluation of both the expert testimony's purpose and the discretion exercised in jury room practices.

Legal Reasoning

The court's reasoning can be dissected into two main components corresponding to the issues raised:

1. Admissibility of Expert Testimony on Victim Behavior

The court determined that Mr. Bosman's testimony, which compared L.J.'s behavior to that of typical sexual abuse victims, served to contextualize why he questioned her, rather than to assert the occurrence of the assault or the truthfulness of her claim. The testimony aimed to elucidate the behavioral indicators that might raise suspicions of abuse, thereby assisting the jury in understanding the complainant's actions without directly influencing their assessment of the assault's veracity.

By aligning this testimony with precedents like STATE v. ROBINSON, the court emphasized that expert opinions can be admissible when they provide necessary insights into victim behavior patterns, helping the jury to interpret the complainant's actions without overstepping into the realm of determining factual truth.

2. Inclusion of Written Confessions in Jury Room

The court revisited the established State v. Payne rule, which generally prohibited written confessions from being reviewed by juries to avoid undue emphasis over oral testimonies. However, reflecting on contemporary practices and the specifics of the Jensen case, the court opted for a flexible approach. It held that the trial court appropriately exercised discretion by allowing the confession's inclusion, given its potential to aid the jury in assessing conflicting testimonies about the confession's voluntariness and content.

This decision marked a departure from the rigid application of the Payne rule, advocating for a more nuanced consideration of written confessions based on their relevance and potential impact on the jury's deliberations.

Impact

The judgment in STATE v. JENSEN has substantial implications for future cases involving:

  • Expert Testimony on Victim Behavior: It reinforces the acceptability of expert opinions that contextualize victim behavior, provided they do not directly purport the occurrence of the alleged crime or the victim's honesty.
  • Jury Room Practices: It introduces flexibility in handling written confessions, allowing courts to use discretion in determining their admissibility in the jury room based on the case's unique circumstances.
  • Balancing Precedent and Practicality: The decision exemplifies the court's willingness to adapt previous rulings to better serve justice in complex scenarios.

These precedents guide legal practitioners and courts in navigating the delicate balance between presenting comprehensive evidence and safeguarding against prejudicial influences.

Complex Concepts Simplified

1. Red Flag Behavior

Red flag behavior refers to certain actions or changes in behavior that signal potential underlying issues, such as emotional trauma or abuse. In this case, L.J.'s changes in behavior, like acting out in class and displaying unusual interests, were identified as red flags that prompted Mr. Bosman to inquire about possible abuse.

2. Rape Trauma Syndrome

Rape trauma syndrome is a psychological condition that can develop after a person experiences sexual assault. It encompasses a range of emotional and behavioral responses, such as anxiety, depression, and changes in behavior. The court was careful to distinguish Mr. Bosman's testimony from this syndrome to clarify that his observations were not intended to diagnose but to contextualize behavior.

3. Expert Testimony Admissibility

The admissibility of expert testimony hinges on whether the expert's specialized knowledge can assist the jury in understanding evidence or determining facts. The court evaluates whether such testimony crosses into providing opinions on the truthfulness of testimonies or the occurrence of the alleged crime, which remains the jury's responsibility.

4. Harmless Error

A harmless error occurs when a legal mistake is made during trial, but it does not significantly affect the outcome of the case. In this judgment, even if the inclusion of the written confession was erroneous under previous rulings, the court deemed it harmless as it did not prejudice the overall fairness of the trial.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Wisconsin's decision in STATE v. JENSEN serves as a pivotal reference for the admissibility of expert testimony related to victim behavior and the discretionary inclusion of written confessions in jury deliberations. By affirming the admissibility of such expert opinions when they aid in understanding victim behavior without directly influencing the determination of truth, the court reinforced a nuanced approach to evidence presentation. Moreover, by overruling a per se exclusion of written confessions from the jury room, the judgment acknowledged the evolving standards of evidence handling, emphasizing judicial discretion tailored to the specifics of each case. This decision not only upholds the integrity of the judicial process but also ensures that juries are adequately informed to make fair and informed decisions.

Case Details

Year: 1988
Court: Supreme Court of Wisconsin.

Judge(s)

Shirley S. Abrahamson

Attorney(S)

For the defendant-appellant-petitioner there briefs and oral argument by Glenn L. Cushing, assistant state public defender. For the plaintiff-respondent the cause was argued by Sally L. Wellman, assistant attorney general, with whom on the brief was Donald J. Hanaway, attorney general.

Comments