State v. McDonnell.
SCWC-14-0000355
| Haw. | Aug 28, 2017Background
- William McDonnell was tried in Hawai‘i Family Court on multiple counts of first- and third-degree sexual assault for acts alleged to have occurred in November 2012 against his minor daughter (Minor); jury convicted him on one first-degree and several third-degree counts and sentenced him to 20 years.
- At trial the State called Dr. Alexander Bivens as an expert on dynamics of child sexual abuse to explain delayed reporting, "tunnel memory," incomplete disclosure, grooming/abuse-process behaviors, and certain statistics about offender-victim relationships.
- Defense moved in limine to exclude Bivens as irrelevant, unduly prejudicial, and as impermissible profiling; court admitted most testimony but indicated defense could challenge underlying studies.
- Trial evidence included Minor’s detailed testimony of multiple incidents, Mother’s corroboration, a medical examiner (Dr. Lee) who documented some disclosures, and Bivens’ expert explanations; defense rested without presenting evidence.
- On appeal the ICA affirmed admission of Bivens’ testimony in three categories (delayed reporting/tunnel memory, incomplete disclosure, and abuse process), and this Court granted certiorari to resolve admissibility limits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McDonnell) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility under HRE 702 of expert testimony about delayed reporting and "tunnel memory" | Bivens’ testimony aids jurors in understanding why victims delay/report inconsistently; relevant and non‑vouching | Not relevant; behavior not outside ordinary juror knowledge; risks bolstering credibility | Admissible: court follows Batangan; helped explain Minor’s inconsistent dates and delayed disclosures |
| Admissibility under HRE 403 of testimony on incomplete disclosure (studies showing underreporting) | Highly probative given lack of alternative explanation for initial incomplete disclosures | Unduly prejudicial; studies suggest victim underreported severity, inviting speculation jury would assume more abuse than alleged | Admissible: probative value outweighed prejudice; tailored to explain initial underreporting |
| Admission of testimony describing abuse process / "grooming" and offender behavior (profile risk) | Explains why victim acquiesced and bartered sexual contact; aids jury beyond ordinary knowledge | Constitutes impermissible profile evidence, prejudicially suggesting defendant fits an offender class | Admissible: not improper profile here; Bivens disclaimed a single offender profile and did not opine on defendant’s guilt; testimony explained offender–victim dynamics |
| Admission of specific statistical assertions (e.g., 85% pre-existing relationship; 100% incest offenders abused in home) | Statistics contextualize dynamics | Statistics risked unfair profiling, implying high likelihood defendant was the kind of abuser alleged | Admission of those specific statistics was error, but harmless beyond a reasonable doubt given strong direct testimony and corroboration |
Key Cases Cited
- Batangan v. State, 71 Haw. 552, 799 P.2d 48 (1990) (expert testimony may explain ‘‘seemingly bizarre’’ victim behavior but may not vouch for credibility)
- State v. Clark, 83 Haw. 289, 926 P.2d 194 (1996) (expert testimony on victim–abuser dynamics admissible to explain recantation/acquiescence)
- State v. Vliet, 95 Haw. 94, 19 P.3d 42 (2001) (HRE 702 relevancy touchstones for expert testimony)
- State v. Renon, 73 Haw. 23, 828 P.2d 1266 (1992) (factors for HRE 403 balancing: need for evidence, alternatives, risk of juror hostility)
- State v. Behrendt, 124 Haw. 90, 237 P.3d 1156 (2010) (probative use limits and caution where uncharged allegations might inflame jury)
- United States v. Long, 328 F.3d 655 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (distinguishing improper propensity/profile evidence from permissible expert testimony that aids jurors in understanding offender behavior)