Ramayo v. State
132 So. 3d 1224
| Fla. Dist. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Ramayo was convicted at trial of multiple counts relating to sexual abuse of S.N.R., his three-year-old niece, with no physical or eyewitness proof other than S.N.R.’s videotaped interview.
- A pediatrician testified as an expert, diagnosing “sexual abuse by history” despite no abnormal physical findings.
- The jury acquitted on sexual battery of a child under 12 but found guilt on related battery, lewd and lascivious exhibition, and molestation.
- The court admitted the expert testimony over defense objections, which the court treated as admissible expert opinion.
- The defense sought mistrial over prosecutor comments and challenged the bolstering impact of the expert testimony.
- The appellate court reversed and remanded for a new trial due to improper bolstering and its potential prejudicial effect on the verdict.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the expert’s testimony constituted improper bolstering | Ramayo | Ramayo asserts bolstering of the child’s credibility | Reversible error; bolstering not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt |
| Whether admission of “sexual abuse by history” without physical findings was admissible | Ramayo | Lambert’s diagnosis grounded on history allowed | Not admissible as improper bolstering; reversible error |
| Whether Frye admissibility was implicated by the expert’s testimony | Ramayo | Lambert’s testimony did not require Frye | Frye not warranted given improper bolstering; remand nonetheless required |
| Whether denial of mistrial was error given prosecutorial impact | Ramayo | Curative instruction sufficed | No abuse of discretion; ruling not dispositive given remand |
| Whether the State failed to meet DiGuilio harmless-error standard | Ramayo | Error was harmless | Not harmless beyond reasonable doubt; requires remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Geissler v. State, 90 So.3d 941 (Fla. 2d DCA 2012) (improper to allow expert to vouch for witness credibility in child-sex cases)
- Frances v. State, 970 So.2d 806 (Fla. 2007) (prohibits expert testimony commenting on credibility)
- Feller v. State, 637 So.2d 911 (Fla. 1994) (limits expert testimony that implies truthfulness of victim)
- Hitchcock v. State, 636 So.2d 572 (Fla. 4th DCA 1994) (expert testimony cannot convey belief in victim's truthfulness)
- Price v. State, 627 So.2d 64 (Fla. 5th DCA 1993) (prohibition on implying victim credibility by expert)
- State v. DiGuilio, 491 So.2d 1129 (Fla. 1986) (harmless-error standard forreview)