Commonwealth, Aplt. v. Maconeghy Jr., K.
171 A.3d 707
| Pa. | 2017Background
- In 2011 C.S., then 16, reported repeated sexual assaults by her stepfather (Maconeghy) occurring in 2005 when she was 11; Maconeghy was tried and convicted of multiple sexual-offense charges.
- Commonwealth’s expert pediatrician Dr. Quentin Novinger examined C.S., observed her forensic interview, reviewed history, performed a physical exam (which showed no physical signs), and testified that, based on the history and his medical encounter, he believed C.S. had been victimized.
- Defense later moved to strike that portion of Dr. Novinger’s testimony; trial court denied the motion and convictions followed.
- The Superior Court reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding the expert’s opinion that the child was abused (based on the child’s statements, without physical findings) impermissibly intruded on the jury’s credibility-determination role.
- The Pennsylvania Supreme Court granted review on whether that testimony improperly encroached on the jury’s function and affirmed the Superior Court: experts may not opine that a particular complainant was sexually abused when the opinion rests on the complainant’s account and there are no physical findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Commonwealth) | Defendant's Argument (Maconeghy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of expert opinion that a particular child was sexually abused when based primarily on the child’s history and no physical findings | Medical/forensic experts (like Dr. Novinger) may opine based on the full medical encounter; medical credentials and accepted methodology distinguish this from behavioral vouching; Rule 702 permits helpful expert opinions | Such an opinion improperly bolsters the complainant’s credibility and usurps the jury’s exclusive role to assess witness credibility | Court held inadmissible: an expert may not state that a particular complainant was sexually assaulted where the opinion is premised on the complainant’s account and there is no physical evidence; it intrudes on the jury’s province |
| Whether medical experts are categorically different from behavioral experts for purposes of the credibility prohibition | Expert’s medical training and reliance on accepted medical literature place them outside the line of cases restricting behavioral experts | Expert opinion that a complainant was abused based on history is indirect vouching regardless of the expert’s medical credentials | Court rejected a medical/behavioral distinction; credentials do not immunize an expert from the proscription against vouching |
| Interaction of prior Pennsylvania precedent allowing certain victim-response testimony with the present situation | Statutory and precedent allowances for testimony about victim responses do not authorize credibility opinions about a specific complainant | Such testimony is precisely the forbidden form of bolstering when it equates to a diagnosis based on the complainant’s statement | Court limited its holding to testimony that opines abuse of the particular complainant based on history only; it did not address cases involving physical findings or permissible general-response testimony |
| Whether failure to object contemporaneously waived the issue | Commonwealth argued limitations on appellate review or waiver (not reviewed here) | Appellee contended objection preserved or timely enough | Court declined to address waiver/open-door claims and resolved only the admitted-question of law on admissibility |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Seese, 517 A.2d 920 (Pa. 1986) (expert testimony forbidden when it improperly attests to credibility of a class or witness)
- Commonwealth v. Dunkle, 602 A.2d 830 (Pa. 1992) (expert testimony linking complainant to behavioral characteristics impermissible when it invades jury’s credibility role)
- Commonwealth v. Balodis, 747 A.2d 341 (Pa. 2000) (disapproving expert testimony on general behavioral characteristics of sexual-abuse victims insofar as it risks usurping juror function)
- Commonwealth v. Minerd, 753 A.2d 225 (Pa. 2000) (allowing expert testimony that absence of physical trauma does not disprove abuse, but distinguishing inconclusive medical explanations from vouching)
- Commonwealth v. Rounds, 542 A.2d 997 (Pa. 1988) (discussing expert opinions based on alleged victim history and counsel’s duty to expose foundation; court did not fully resolve admissibility of history-based diagnosis)
- Commonwealth v. O’Searo, 352 A.2d 30 (Pa. 1976) (affirming that credibility determinations are within the jury’s province and that experts should not decide credibility)