State v. Batangan

Supreme Court of Hawaii · 1990 · Evidence

71 Haw. 552 (1990)

Updated August 22, 2026

EvidenceExpert testimonyWitness credibilityChild sexual abuseHRE 702HRE 704credibilityultimate issue

Facts

Complainant alleged that when she was 6 or 7 years old, Defendant performed sexual acts on her on four or five occasions, but she could not give specific dates or distinguish one incident from another. She first reported physical abuse, then admitted that report was false and instead accused Defendant of sexual abuse, and later recanted the sexual abuse allegations before testifying at trial that Defendant had abused her. At the second trial, the State called Dr. Bond, a clinical psychologist specializing in treatment of sexually abused children, who had evaluated Complainant once three weeks before trial. Dr. Bond testified about Complainant, some general behavior of child sex abuse victims, his method of evaluating truthfulness, and implicitly conveyed that Complainant was believable and had been abused by Defendant.

Issue

Whether, under HRE Rule 702, the trial court could admit expert testimony in a child sexual abuse prosecution that effectively vouched for the complainant's credibility and indicated that the abuse occurred. The case also required the court to reconsider the continuing validity of State v. Kim to the extent it allowed expert credibility assessments in such cases.

Rule

Expert testimony is admissible under HRE Rule 702 only if specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or determine a fact in issue. In child sexual abuse cases, an expert may explain general behavioral patterns that might seem unusual to jurors, such as delayed reporting, inconsistency, or recantation, but may not give conclusory opinions that abuse occurred or that the child's report is truthful or believable, because such testimony does not assist the jury and improperly invades the jury's role. HRE Rule 704 does not permit opinions that merely tell the jury what result to reach.

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In a prosecution in Honolulu for sexual abuse of a 10-year-old by her uncle, the defense emphasizes that Mia waited eight months before telling anyone. The State offers a licensed psychologist who has never met Mia to testify that children abused by family members often delay reporting because of fear, confusion, and family pressure.

Should the trial judge admit the testimony?

Explanation. Under HRE Rule 702 as applied in the majority opinion, expert testimony may be admitted if specialized knowledge will assist the jury. In child sexual abuse cases, an expert may explain general behavioral characteristics such as delayed reporting, especially where jurors might otherwise treat that behavior as evidence of fabrication. The expert may give this general explanatory testimony without having examined the complainant, so long as the testimony is limited to assisting the jury rather than vouching for truthfulness.