JOSEPH WALTER v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, Arthur, Nov. 2, 2018,
Evidence – Statement of Disbelief – Portions of a recorded statement where the detective expresses disbelief in the suspect’s statement should not be played unless probative, such as where they cause the suspect to change his story or confess

Expert Testimony – Expert testimony is admissible to explain delayed reporting of child abuse

Expert Testimony – For a witness to testify as an expert:
– the witness must be qualified by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education
– the testimony must be appropriate
– and there must be a sufficient factual basis to support the expert testimony

Expert Testimony – The sufficiency of the factual basis includes two subfactors: an adequate supply of data and a reliable methodology.

From the Case: Ms. Lemon undoubtedly had an adequate supply of data from her personal experiences, but the reliability of her methodology is another question… Ms. Lemon kept no statistics and could point to no peer-reviewed studies to support her conclusion, so she appears to have based her opinion on only an extrapolation from her own experiences

From the Case: From the record before us, it is unclear how Ms. Lemon concluded that victims of child sexual abuse often, frequently, or commonly delay in reporting the abuse. In particular, it is unclear how she determined that a delayed report originated with a bona fide victim as opposed to someone who had fabricated a report or had a false memory of abuse, which, she recognized, sometimes occurs

Lay Opinion – A witness could testify that the defendant looked “trapped” because

Lay Opinion – Lay opinion testimony is testimony that is rationally based on the perceptions of the witness.

Lay Opinion – Examples relate to the appearance of persons or things, identity, the manner of conduct, competency of a person, degrees of light or darkness, sound, size, weight, distance, and an endless number of items that cannot be described factually in words apart from inferences.

Lay Opinion – Lay opinion testimony should be admitted if such testimony is derived from first-hand knowledge; is rationally connected to the underlying facts; is helpful to the trier of fact; and is not barred by any other rule of evidence

Lay Opinion – Lay opinion testimony is permissible “where it is impossible, difficult, or inefficient to verbalize or communicate the underlying data observed by the witness.”

From the Case: “Allowing Stepfather to say that Walter looked ‘trapped’ was much more efficient than requiring him to identify each of the minute observations that led him to his conclusion.”