Cеsar Portillo appeals his conviction and twenty-five year sentence for first-degree criminal sexual conduct with a minor (CSC), arguing the trial court erred in: (1) qualifying a witness as an expert in child sexual assault cases and child sexual assault forensic interviewing; (2) allowing the expert to exceed his scope of expertise and testify about the significance of language and hand gestures used by the victim (Victim); and (3) allowing the expert to testify Victim exhibited symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) where no diagnosis of PTSD was made. We affirm.
In 2010, Portillo was indicted for one count of CSC with a minor. Victim testified she spent the night with her cousin (Cousin) on the night in quеstion. Victim testified to the abuse, stating she awoke when she felt a slight touch on her hand. Portillo, her uncle, moved her hand to his private parts and moved her hand back and forth. Portillo pulled down her pajama pants and placed his hands on her private parts. He then licked her privates. Victim witnessed Portillo tоuching his own private parts and “something was coming out of him, going into Cousin’s polka-dotted trash can.” Portillo wiped himself with a towel and left the room. He returned to retrieve a towel from Cousin’s closet and entered the bathroom. When Victim heard the shower turned on, she ran into Portillo’s bedroom and told her aunt (Aunt), about the assault. Victim was nine years old at the time of the sexual assault.
During the trial, Aunt testified she was married to Portillo, and Victim was her niece. Victim was spending the night in question with the Portillos’ daughter, Cousin. Portillo fell asleep in his work clothes in Portillo and Aunt’s bedroom. Aunt testified she eventually fell asleep and was awakened by Victim аt approximately 1:30 a.m. Aunt described Victim as confused and startled. Victim told Aunt about the assault. At the time, Portillo was in the shower. When Aunt confronted Portillo, his demeanor was upset, “very shaky[, ...] kind of, like, trembling.” Aunt took Victim and Cousin to Victim’s grandmother’s house.
Victim’s mother (Mother), a registered nurse, testified she met Aunt and Victim at the grandmother’s house, and Mother later called Dr. Linda DeMarco, MD. The following day, Dr. DeMarco examined Victim. At trial, the court qualified Dr. DeMarco as an expert in the fields of pediatrics and pediatrics in sexual assault cases. Dr. DeMarco found redness and irritation between the labial lips consistent with Victim’s allegаtions of sexual assault.
Approximately one week after the incident, Victim met with Dr. Donald Elsey for a forensic interview. A videotape of the interview was viewed by the jury. When Dr. Elsey was asked at trial what certain language used by Victim signified, he responded, “she was just telling what she was seeing____She
At a second interview, conducted a week after the first interview, Victim’s family expressed concern to Dr. Elsey regarding symptoms Victim was experiencing, such as the inability to sleep, nightmares, and the ability to focus on school work. Dr. Elsey testified Victim said there was a connection between the alleged molestation and the symptoms. He opinеd the symptoms could be indicative of post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), but due to the short period of time between the incident and his interviews with Victim, it would be inappropriate for him to diagnose her with PTSD. However, Dr. Elsey admitted the symptoms could be indicative of a traumatic experience. He testified he referrеd Victim to a therapist for “trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapy.” Dr. Elsey concluded his testimony by testifying a forensic interview is “a piece of the investigation,” and he could not state what happened to Victim and had made no determination in regard to the information reported to him.
The trial court instructed the jury to give “no greater weight” to an expert witness’s testimony “simply because the witness is an expert.” The jury convicted Portillo. This appeal followed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
In criminal cases, this court sits to review errors of law only and is bound by the trial court’s factual findings unless they are clearly erroneous. State v. Wilson,
LAW/ANALYSIS
A. Dr. Elsey’s Testimony
Portillo argues the trial court erred in qualifying Dr. Elsey as an expert in child sexual assault cases and child sexual assault forensic interviewing, and the quаlification was prejudicial because the testimony amounted to vouching for victim’s credibility. Portillo also argues Dr. Elsey’s testimony regarding the significance of victim’s language and hand gestures exceeded the scope of his expertise and vouched for victim’s credibility.
In State v. Kromah,
[W]e can envision no circumstance whеre [a forensic interviewer’s] qualification as an expert would be appropriate. Forensic interviewers might be useful as a tool to aid law enforcement officers in their initial investigative process, but this does not make their work appropriate for use in the courtroom. The rules of evidence do not allow witnesses to vouch for or offer opinions on the credibility of others, and the work of a forensic interviewer, by its very nature, seeks to ascertain whether abuse occurred at all, i.e., whether the victim is telling the truth, and to identify the source of the*71 abuse. Part of the [forensic interviewer’s methodоlogy] ... involves evaluating whether the victim understands the importance of telling the truth and whether the victim has told the truth, as well as the forensic interviewer’s judgment in determining what actually transpired. For example, an interviewer’s statement that there is a “compelling finding” of physical abuse relies not just on objective evidеnce such as the presence of injuries, but on the statements of the victim and the interviewer’s subjective belief as to the victim’s believability. However, an interviewer’s expectations or bias, the suggestiveness of the interviewer’s questions, and the interviewer’s examination of possible alternative explanations for any concerns, are all factors that can influence the interviewer’s conclusions in this regard. Such subjects, while undoubtedly important in the investigative process, are not appropriate in a court of law when they run afoul of evidentiary rules and a defendant’s constitutional rights.
The court in Kromah also stated, “[Although an еxpert’s testimony theoretically is to be given no more weight by a jury than any other witness, it is an inescapable fact that jurors can have a tendency to attach more significance to the testimony of experts.” Id. at 357,
[E]ven though experts are permitted to give an opinion, they may not offer an opinion regarding the credibility of others. It is undeniable that the primary purpose for calling a “forensic interviewer” as a witness is to lend credibility to the victim’s allegations. When this witness is qualified as an expert the impermissible harm is compounded.
Id. at 358,
The supreme court found the types of statements a forensic interviewer should avoid include the following:
• that the child was told to be truthful;
• a direct opinion as to a child’s veracity or tendency to tell the truth;
• any statement that indirectly vouches for the child’s believability, such as stating the interviewer has made a “compelling finding” of abuse;
• an opinion that the child’s behavior indicated the child was telling the truth.
Id. at 360,
A forensic interviewer, however, may properly testify regarding the following:
• the time, date, and circumstances of the interview;
• any personal observations regarding the child’s behavior or demeanor; or
• a statement as to events that occurred within the personal knowledge of the interviewer.
These lists are not intended to be exclusive, since the testimony will of necessity vary in each trial, but this may serve as a general guideline for the use of this and other similar testimony by forensic interviewers.
Id. at 360,
In this case, Dr. Elsey’s testimony may violate two of the types of questions now prohibited by Kromah. For instance, Dr. Elsey’s testimony that victim was not coached is arguably a prohibited “statement that indirectly vouches for the child’s believability.” See id. at 360,
In comparison, the supreme court in State v. Douglas,
Portillo acknowledges Dr. Elsey did “not specifically testify[] that hе believed the child witness” and argues instead that by stating Victim used childlike language and gestures and exhibited symptoms of trauma, Dr. Elsey vouched for Victim’s credibility. As was the case in Douglas, Dr. Elsey did not specifically state he believed Victim to be truthful. See Douglas,
Nevertheless, like other trial errors, these errors are subjеct to a harmless error analysis. See Kromah,
In this case, the evidence admitted included the videotape of Victim’s interview, and the trial testimony of Victim, Aunt, Mother, Dr. DeMarco, аnd Dr. Elsey. In reviewing the record for harmless error, we first note there is physical evidence of sexual assault, despite Portillo’s argument the physical evidence is slight compared to that in Douglas. A nurse in Douglas examined the victim and found vaginal tearing and scarring consistent with past penetration. Douglas,
After a review of the record in this case, we find any errors arising from Dr. Elsey’s qualificatiоn as an expert in forensic interviewing and his alleged vouching to be harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. See Kromah,
B. TESTIMONY ON PTSD SYMPTOMS
Portillo argues the trial court erred in permitting Dr. Elsey to testify regarding Victim’s PTSD symptoms. Portillo maintains Dr. Elsey was not qualified to testify that Victim exhibited symptoms consistent with PTSD, and further argues the trial court “failed to make the requisite finding pursuant to Rule 702, SCRE.” We find Portillo abandoned these arguments. See State v. Lindsey,
For the foregoing reasons, Portillo’s conviction is
AFFIRMED.
Notes
. We combine Portillo's first and second arguments.
. Portillo also argues the trial court erred in failing to make the findings required by Rule 702, SCRE. However, Portillo raises this issue for the first time on appeal; thus, it is not preserved for appellate review. See State v. Dunbar,