State v. Berry
418 S.C. 500
| S.C. | 2016Background
- Stephen Douglas Berry was convicted of second-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor; the State called Kim Roseborough as an expert in child sexual abuse assessment and treatment.
- Roseborough’s testimony had three parts: (1) the victim’s demeanor in therapy, (2) explanation of delayed disclosure under Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome, and (3) trauma symptoms and possible PTSD observed in the victim.
- Trial objections: the court sustained objections to questions asking whether the victim’s disclosure was "consistent with" sexual abuse and to multiple questions tying the victim to delayed-disclosure factors; counsel did not move to strike, request curative instructions, or seek a mistrial after those rulings.
- During the PTSD/trauma testimony, counsel objected and conferred off the record; later the court allowed Roseborough to testify about trauma symptoms and to state her opinion that the victim suffered from PTSD; counsel later placed an objection on the record arguing Roseborough lacked qualifications to diagnose PTSD.
- The Court of Appeals reviewed and addressed the PTSD and trauma testimony; the Supreme Court granted certiorari, affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision as modified, and limited the preserved issues on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony asking whether victim’s disclosure was "consistent with" abuse | Such testimony was proper expert explanation of disclosure dynamics | Kromah prohibits expert testimony opining on victim’s veracity | Court sustained trial objection at trial; on appeal issue not preserved because objection was sustained and counsel did not move to strike or seek further relief |
| Admissibility of testimony linking victim to delayed-disclosure factors | State sought to show factors explaining delayed disclosure to aid the jury | Defense objected under Kromah and trial court sustained objections | Objections sustained at trial; issue not preserved for appeal due to lack of motion to strike or mistrial |
| Whether Roseborough could testify about trauma symptoms she observed | State argued she could describe observed behaviors and explain typical trauma symptoms | Defense argued she lacked qualification to diagnose PTSD (social worker, not medical doctor) | Court allowed description of observed behaviors and typical trauma symptoms; only qualification-based objection preserved regarding PTSD diagnosis |
| Whether Roseborough could opine that the victim suffered from PTSD | State relied on her assessment and referral to psychiatrist as basis for opinion | Defense contended she was not qualified to diagnose PTSD | Only qualification objection was preserved; appellate courts should not consider other unpreserved grounds; trial court ruled non-physicians can diagnose PTSD in this context and testimony was permitted as to PTSD symptoms/diagnosis |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Kromah, 401 S.C. 340 (2013) (expert testimony cannot be used to vouch for a victim’s credibility)
- State v. Wilson, 389 S.C. 579 (Ct. App. 2010) (issues not preserved where objection is sustained but no motion to strike or mistrial is made)
- State v. Byers, 392 S.C. 438 (2011) (when witness answers before objection, a motion to strike is required to preserve exclusion)
- State v. Jennings, 394 S.C. 473 (2011) (preservation requires raising an issue to and obtaining a ruling from the trial court)
- State v. Dunbar, 356 S.C. 138 (2003) (a party may not argue one ground at trial and a different ground on appeal)
- State v. Berry, 413 S.C. 118 (Ct. App. 2015) (Court of Appeals decision under review by supreme court)