MOUSSA SISSOKO v. STATE OF MARYLAND
Court of Special Appeals, D Eyler, Jan. 31, 2018,
Expert Opinion – Child Abuse – “Abusive head trauma” is generally accepted in the scientific community and expert testimony related to this diagnosis may be admitted in court if there is a sufficient factual basis to support it.

Facts:
In 2001, Sissoko’s girlfriend gave birth to a baby boy. Less than two months later, Sissoko took out a $750,000 life insurance policy on the baby. He lied to his girlfriend about the insurance and the reason that an insurance examiner was present in the house.
The day after Sissoko mailed in his first payment on the infant’s life-insurance policy, he asked to bring the baby to Sissoko’s mother’s house. He explained that his mother wanted to spend time with the baby. His mother had no idea that Sissoko was bringing the baby to her house, however.
A few hours after bringing the baby to Sissoko’s mother’s house, Sissoko came and got his mother to tell her that the baby’s nose was bleeding.
Sissoko’s mother noticed that the baby was not breathing and began CPR while Sissoko called 911. The baby died at the hospital.
A Montgomery County PD detective interviewed Sissoko at the hospital. In his statement, Sissoko admitted that he was the only one dealing with the infant and that the infant had not suffered any trauma/accident/fall.
Medical examination showed significant internal bleeding and brain injury. The autopsy concluded that the infant died of “shaken baby syndrome.”
Sissoko was charged and convicted of murder and child abuse after a jury trial in 2002.
In 2015, a judge in Montgomery County granted Sissoko a new trial after he claimed that his trial lawyer was ineffective for not calling an expert to testify that the baby’s significant internal bleeding was due to a medical issue.
Prior to re-trial, the defense tried to bar the State’s experts from testifying that the baby suffered from “abusive head trauma” leading to its death.
In this hearing (known as a Frye-Reed hearing), the State presented 5 experts who testified that “abusive head trauma” was an accepted diagnosis. The defense expert testified that “shaking could not cause brain injury.”
The trial judge accepted the State’s experts and allowed them to testify about “abusive head trauma.”
After a trial, Sissoko was once again convicted in 2016. The trial judge found, beyond a reasonable doubt, that “the defendant inflicted abusive head trauma upon the child, that was the cause of his death by either shaking and/or causing soft impact trauma to the child.”
Sissoko appealed, arguing that the State’s experts should not have been allowed to testify about “abusive head trauma” and that there was not enough evidence to convict him.

Held: The Court of Special Appeals disagreed. The State provided enough support to show that “abusive head trauma” is an accepted diagnosis. It also held that there was enough evidence to convict Sissoko.

Expert Testimony – Expert testimony may be admitted if the testimony will assist the judge or jury understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue

Expert Testimony – To decide whether expert testimony will be admitted, the court must consider:
(1) whether the witness is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,
(2) the appropriateness of the expert testimony on the particular subject, and
(3) whether a sufficient factual basis exists to support the expert testimony.

Expert Testimony – Frye-Reed – Not all expert opinions are allowed into evidence in Maryland. In order for an expert to testify on the basis of a technique or method, it must be shown that:
– The scientific technique is not “novel” to the courts (it has already been accepted by the courts)
– or, if the technique is novel to the courts, it has been generally accepted by the scientific community as reliable (accurate, reproducible, standardized, etc.)

From the Case: Because of the “present controversy” in the medical community regarding “abusive head trauma,” the trial court was not allowed to take judicial notice of the scientific diagnosis. Instead, it had to conduct a “Frye-Reed hearing” and hear evidence regarding the acceptance of the diagnosis in the scientific community.

Expert Testimony – Frye-Reed – The scientific community does not have to be unanimous in order for there to be “general acceptance” of a scientific technique.

From the Case: “In the case at bar, the opinions expressed by the State’s medical experts were not outlier opinions within the relevant medical communities. Quite the contrary, the opinion that abusive head trauma is a legitimate and reliably-made diagnosis is shared by the overwhelming majority of physicians within the relevant medical fields.”

Note: Federal courts use a different standard that looks at whether the witness is qualified and if the technique is reliable. The federal test if more flexible and relies less on “general acceptance” within the scientific community.

Expert Testimony – Analytical Gap – An expert witness may not give an opinion if he fails to connect the “analytic gap” between the evidence he was given and the conclusion he arrived at.

1st-degree murder – A murder is in the first degree if it is “a deliberate, premeditated, and willful killing”

Child Abuse – Three categories of individuals may be liable for child abuse:
– Family Members
– Household Members
– Anyone with permanent or temporary care, custody, or responsibility to supervise a minor.

1st-degree child-abuse- A parent, family member, household member, or other person who has responsibility for the supervision of a minor may not cause abuse to the minor that results in the death of the minor

From the Case: Although there was no direct evidence, there was more than enough circumstantial evidence to convict Sissoko. The State presented: expert medical testimony showing that the baby died of non-accidental catastrophic brain injury and collapse; evidence showing that the baby was “a healthy and normal baby” until he was left alone with Sissoko on Sept. 15, 2001; evidence that Sissoko was the only person alone with the baby when it was injured; that Sissoko altered his routine on September 15, 2001, by taking Shane to his mother’s house, ostensibly because she wanted to see him, although she testified that she did not know her son was bringing Shane to her house that day; that Sissoko took out a life insurance on the baby and it died the day after the insurance vested. From all of this evidence, a reasonable fact-finder could find beyond a reasonable doubt that on September 15, 2001, the appellant violently shook and/or slammed the baby, inflicting catastrophic brain injuries that resulted in his death ten days later, and that Sissoko did so deliberately, with the intent to kill, and with premeditation. All of this evidence, coupled with the medical evidence establishing that Shane suffered abusive head trauma, was plainly sufficient to sustain his convictions for first-degree murder, child abuse, and child abuse resulting in death.