State v. J.Q.,
617 A.2d 1196 (1993)


Procedural:The state challenged the decision of the Superior Court, Appellate Division (New Jersey), which ordered a new trial and reversed defendant's convictions of first-degree aggravated sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. The appellate court had found that the trial court committed plain error in permitting child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome testimony to establish the credibility of the child witnesses.

Facts: A father (D) was convicted of multiple counts of first-degree aggravated sexual assault on his two young daughters and endangering the welfare of a child. At trial, an expert witness on child sexual abuse gave testimony for the State (P). She defined child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome ("CSAAS") as a pattern of behavior that is found to occur again and again in children who are victims of incest. D appealed his conviction. The appellate court reversed the conviction. P appeals for a review on "all issues relating to psychological and social science expert testimony regarding familial child sexual abuse complainants." D cross-appeals against the admission of expert testimony based on behavioral science theories.

Issue: May CSAAS evidence be submitted to a jury as evidence of guilt?

Holding: Yes. Judgment affirmed. The Superior Court, Appellate Division, reversed and remanded. Both parties appealed. The Supreme Court, O'Hern, J., held that Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) evidence was inadmissible to establish guilt or innocence, and such evidence was admissible only to establish that victims' symptoms were consistent with sexual abuse and to explain delay in reporting abuse or recantation of allegations of abuse.
Aff

Analysis: The court affirmed the judgment of the appellate court, which reversed defendant's convictions of sexual assault and endangering the welfare of a child. The court ordered a new trial because the expert witness' testimony on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome went beyond that limited scope and included opinions on credibility and jury issues.The standard that determines the admissibility of scientific evidence is whether it has been accepted in the scientific community.