ÿWPC¶ …# VUNa %¯ 0(µ4Ýñ  w@4 0Jt 0T¾ 0^ 0hp 0rØ 0|J 0†Æ 0L 1uÜ U,Q 0d} U,á U> U*KB)u BžDC» AMþKv~M D3ËvÓþ 0@Ñ AOÆ` 0D& D/j B™˜HP LaserJet 4Si/4SiMX PS 600dpiPSCRIPTÀÌÀääÀÀÌ0 (ÈhH  Z ‹6Times New Roman RegularX($¡¡©U!3|xþ ÿBYERSÿÿBYERSÿ ê ë Eì í Eî ï Eð ñ Eò ó Ó€2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)< Œ 9p`(ModernP ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ< Œ 9p`(Monaco< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman< Œ 9p`(Arial% Line 7 d d$$$$7Border 1dd€-&Cþÿ << Gÿÿ øÝ ƒ!ÝÔ€ÔÔ€"ÔÝ  ÝÔ€#ÔÔ€#ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€#XÔÌÌò òSeptember€9,€1996ÌÌCecil€Crowson,€Jr.ÌÔ€#ôÔAppellate€Court€Clerkó óPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHÚ(d'@%%%%'ÿÿdxdStyl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑMonacoÑÑ ÑÒ  BA Op Monaco ÒÒ  BA Op Monaco Ò("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  Ò€-‚ƒCþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó„„'÷ÿ dxdüÿP PdÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€ÔÓ&€!!X„d&ÓÑ#€!!Xd#ÑÔ€"ÔÝ  Ý›Ò ž ÒÒ ° ÒÒ ž ÒÒ £ ÒÑ\R AØ'\ÑÓ  ÓÔ€#ÔÑ\R AØ'\ÑÌÌÌIN€THE€COURT€OF€CRIMINAL€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌ̜ـ€ÙÙ€€ÙßL€'(&;+'h|` Å `€€Lß›AT€KNOXVILLEÌÌSEPTEMBER€1995€SESSIONÌÌÌÌÒ ž ÒÒ î ÒÓ  ÓSTATE€OF€TENNESSEE,à àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àAppellee,à àà à)à àNO.€03C01„9504„CR„00125Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àGREENE€COUNTY€ÌV.à àà àà àà àà à)à àNO.€€11882Ìà àà àà àà àà à)Ìà àà àà àà àà à)à àHON.€JAMES€EDWARD€BECKNER€€€€€€ÌDARROW€HILL,à àà àà à)à àÌà àà àà àà àà à)à àœ(Sexual€battery)›€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àà àà àà àà àà àà à)à àÌà àà àAppellant.à àà à)ÌÌÌÌÌòòFOR€THE€APPELLANTóó:à àà àà àà àòòFOR€THE€APPELLEEóó:ÌÌLeRoy€Tipton,€Jr.à àà àà àà àà àCharles€W.€BursonÌ115€East€Depot€Streetà àà àà àà àAttorney€General€and€Reporterà à€€€€€€ÏGreeneville,€Tennessee€37743€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€à àÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àMichael€J.€FaheyÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCriminal€Justice€DivisionÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à450€James€Robertson€ParkwayÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àNashville,€Tennessee€37243ÌœÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.€Berkeley€Bell,€Jr.Ìà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€District€Attorney€GeneralÌ›Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àEric€ChristiansenÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€District€Attorney€GeneralÌÒ ž ÒÒ , Òà àà àà àà àà àà àà àThird€Judicial€DistrictÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreene€County€Office€ComplexÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à113„J€Church€StreetÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àGreeneville,€Tennessee€37745ÌÌÌÌOPINION€FILED:___________________ÌÌÌÌœREVERSED€AND€REMANDED›ÌœÌ›ÌÌœLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGE›ÌÌÌÌÑ7€•{XXdìXXdì7ÑÒ ž ÒÒ X ÒÓ` °ŽXB'0*ŒXÓÌÌÌÌòòò òÓ  ÓOPINIONó óÌÌÌÓÓÓ  Óà àóóThis€case€is€an€appeal€as€of€right€from€a€conviction€by€a€jury€in€the€CriminalÏCourt€of€Greene€County,€Tennessee,€for€sexual€battery.€The€Defendant€appeals€theÏadmission€of€certain€expert€medical€and€psychological€evidence€presented€by€theÏState,€appeals€the€exclusion€of€evidence€concerning€physical€abuse€of€the€allegedÏvictim€by€her€spouse,€appeals€the€exclusion€of€the€records€of€the€diagnosis€andÏtreatment€of€the€alleged€victim€for€psychological€problems€prior€to€the€alleged€sexualÏbattery,€appeals€a€statement€made€to€the€jury€by€the€trial€court€œand€the€admission€ofÏstatements›€made€in€testimony€by€the€husband€of€the€victim,€appeals€the€imposition€ofÏthe€maximum€sentence€on€the€Defendant,€and€challenges€the€sufficiency€of€theÏevidence€to€support€a€finding€of€guilt€beyond€a€reasonable€doubt.€€We€reverse€theÏconviction€on€the€basis€of€the€œimproper€admission›€of€certain€expert€œtestimony€to€theÍeffect€that€symptoms€of€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome€observed€in€the€allegedÏvictim€were€consistent€with€a€sexual€battery€on€her€having€been€made€by€theÏparticular€individual€charged€with€the€crime.›ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Defendant€in€this€case,€Darrow€Hill,€was€the€plant€manager€of€the€plantÏoperated€by€Tuscarora,€Inc.,€in€Greeneville.€€The€alleged€victim€in€this€case,€EdwinaÏWilhoit,€had€been€an€employee€at€the€plant€for€approximately€ten€years€when€theÏsexual€battery€is€alleged€to€have€occurred€on€June€15,€1994.€€At€approximately€5:00ÏP.M.€on€that€date,€Ms.€Wilhoit€was€in€the€Defendantððs€office€at€the€plant.€€TheÏDefendant€showed€her€a€manual€containing€calibrations€related€to€her€work,€and€theÏtwo€visited€together€the€site€of€a€new€sign€for€the€plant.€€It€is€undisputed€that€the€twoÏwere€in€the€Defendantððs€office€alone€for€a€period€of€time,€but€they€œdescribed›€theÏevents€that€occurred€very€differently€in€their€testimony€at€trial.€€Ms.€Wilhoit€œdescribed€›Ïbeing€grabbed€by€the€Defendant€around€her€entire€body€and€of€being€held€by€theÏneck€while€the€Defendant€felt€her€breast.€€When€Ms.€Wilhoit€struggled€free,€theÏDefendant€ran€his€hand€under€her€shorts€and€grabbed€her€buttocks,€according€to€theÏDefendant.€€The€alleged€victim€œdescribed€›€being€grabbed€three€times€beforeÏescaping€to€the€far€side€of€the€office,€and€she€testified€that€then€Mr.€Hill€told€Ñ7€•{XXdìXXdì7ÑÑ  Ñher€thatÏthe€incident€was€to€remain€inside€the€office€and€between€the€two€of€them.€€The€ÌDefendant€described€an€uneventful€business€meeting,€and€both€agree€that€Ms.ÏWilhoit€exited€the€office€after€the€plant€foreman€arrived€in€the€office.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIt€is€undisputed€that€in€April€of€1994€prior€to€the€incident€in€June€of€1994,€Ms.ÏWilhoit€was€physically€abused€by€her€husband€and€was€treated€for€her€injuries€by€Dr.ÏRonald€Cole,€M.D.,€a€general€practitioner.€€The€injuries€on€this€occasion€includedÏð ðfingerprint€marksðð€on€her€neck€and€bruises€elsewhere€on€her€body.€€Dr.€Cole€alsoÏtreated€Ms.€Wilhoit€after€the€alleged€sexual€battery.€€There€was€testimony€at€the€trialÏthat€Ms.€Wilhoit€had€œ›œfinger€marks€or€welts€›€on€œher€shoulders€›œ›€after€the€alleged€sexualÏbattery.€€Ms.€Wilhoit€also€saw€Dr.€Lynn€Petras€Gould,€Ph.D.,€a€clinical€psychologist,Ïfollowing€the€alleged€sexual€battery.€€It€is€undisputed€that€in€1983,€Ms.€Wilhoit€wasÏdiagnosed€and€treated€for€œdepression›€and€œsuicidal€tendencies›€and€did€not€acceptÏrecommended€inpatient€treatment€at€œthe€Nolachuckey„Holston€Area€Mental€HealthÏCenter.›ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Greene€County€Grand€Jury€indicted€the€Defendant€for€sexual€battery€onÏœJuly€25,€1994.€€›€On€œDecember€2,€1994,›€pre„trial€motions€were€heard€in€the€case,Ïincluding€motions€òòin€limineóó.€€It€was€revealed€that€the€State€would€produce€at€trial€bothÏthe€medical€doctor€and€the€clinical€psychologist€who€had€seen€Ms.€Wilhoit€toÏdescribe€her€condition€after€the€alleged€sexual€battery.€€This€exchange€occurredÏbetween€the€trial€court€and€counsel:ÌÓÓÌÓ&` °„X³ÀˆXB'0*ŒX&Óà8 àProsecutor:€€€€And,€finally,€the€„„€Iððm€not€going€to€call€the€dermatologistÏwho€treated€her€for€her€hair€falling€out,€but€she€did€confer€with€a€Ph.D.,Ïclinical€psychologist,€and€he€diagnosed€her€as€suffering€from€a€post„traumatic€stress€disorder.€€And€that€would€be€her€diagnosis.ÌÌà àDefense€counsel:à àWe€object€.€.€.€.ÌÌà8 àTrial€court:à àI€think€thatððs€admissible€to€a€limited€point,€as€long€as€youÏdonððt€do€what€has€happened€in€some€of€these€child€abuse€cases€thatÏhave€caused€them€to€get€reversed.ÌÌà8 àProsecutor:à àIððm€not€going€to€get€into€a€Ballard€situation€at€all.€€IððmÏsimply€showing€that€is€a€result€of€this€attack,€not€use€that€as€a€means€ofÏproving€the€attack.ÌÌà àTrial€court:à àRight.€€Youððre€okay.ÌÌà8 àDefense€counsel:€€à àMaybe€I€misunderstand.€€Now,€œwhat?›ÌÌà8 àTrial€court:à àIn€other€words,€he€canððt€say,€well,€these€symptomsÏindicate€that€certain€things€happened€to€this€woman.€€Thatððs€what€heÏcanððt€do.ÌÌòòÓÓà àóóDefense€counsel:à àRight.ÌÓÓà0 àà àà8 àTrial€court:€à àWhat€he€can€do€is€say,€I€found€this€woman€and€she€is€sufferingÏfrom€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome.ÌÌÓÓBoth€Dr.€Cole€and€Dr.€Gould€testified€at€trial€about€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome,Ïand€the€details€of€that€testimony€will€be€discussed€below.€€Timely€objections€wereÏmade€to€the€testimony€and€œwere€overruled,›€œand€admission€of›€œthe›€expert€testimonyÏwas€one€of€the€grounds€of€a€motion€for€new€trial,€which€was€also€overruled.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDuring€the€trial,€there€were€some€rulings€limiting€the€introduction€of€evidenceÏby€the€Defendant€concerning€the€physical€abuse€of€Ms.€Wilhoit€by€her€husband€inÏApril€of€1994,€but€the€jury€ultimately€heard€testimony€concerning€that€physical€abuse.€ÏDuring€the€trial,€the€victimððs€husband€testified€and€contrary€to€rulings€by€the€trial€court,Ïburst€out€certain€angry€remarks€about€the€Defendant,€including€remarks€which€couldÏbe€interpreted€by€the€jury€to€mean€that€there€had€been€prior€incidents€of€sexualÍbattery€by€this€Defendant.€€œOn€a€separate€occasion,€the›€trial€judge€casuallyÏacknowledged€the€prosecuting€officer€as€the€son€of€his€bailiff,€although€it€is€disputedÏbetween€the€parties€whether€this€was€done€in€the€presence€of€the€jury.€€The€trial€courtÏexcluded€as€too€remote€in€time€any€evidence€of€diagnosis€and€treatment€of€the€victimÏin€1983€for€psychological€problems€with€symptoms€similar€to€those€she€experiencedÏafter€the€June€1994€incident.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€testimony€of€both€Dr.€Cole€and€Dr.€Could€was€brief,€and€the€State€offeredÏthem€for€no€purpose€except€to€describe€the€symptoms€of€Ms.€Wilhoit€after€the€allegedÏsexual€battery€and€to€relate€these€symptoms€to€the€alleged€battery.€€In€its€directÏexamination€of€Dr.€Cole,€the€State€had€the€doctor€describe€Ms.€Wilhoitððs€two€visitsÏand€one€telephone€call€to€his€office€and€had€the€doctor€identify€her€symptoms€asÏbeing€upset,€œÌÌcrying›€or€on€the€verge€of€tears,€having€hair€loss€and€difficulty€sleeping,€and€beingÏanxious.€€The€State€then€asked€the€following€single€question€calling€for€an€expertÏœopinion:Ì›ÓÓÌà8 àProsecutor:à àCan€you€state€with€a€reasonable€degree€of€medicalÏcertainty,€sir,€whether€or€not€the€symptoms€that€she€presented€wereÏconsistent€with€the€anxiety€created€by€having€been€attacked€by€herÏboss?ÌÌà8 àDr.€Cole:à àYes,€they€were.ÌÌÓÓOn€cross„examination,€Dr.€Cole€also€conceded€that€the€symptoms€Ms.€œWilhoit€›€hadÍwere€also€consistent€with€having€been€physically€abused€by€her€husband.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àDr.€Gould€testified€that€she€saw€Ms.€Wilhoit€first€on€July€8,€œ1994,›€and€continuedÏto€see€her€up€to€the€week€before€trial.€€Dr.€Gould€testified€that€Ms.€Wilhoit€ð ðpresentedÏwith€symptoms€of€anxiety€related€to€a€sexual€assault€occurring€at€work.ðð€€TheÏpsychologist€testified€that€her€diagnosis€of€Ms.€Wilhoit€was€post„traumatic€stressÏsyndrome€or€PTSD€and€described€symptoms€of€sleep€disturbance,€nausea,€diarrhea,Ïand€hair€loss.€€After€Dr.€Gould€listed€these€symptoms,€this€testimony€was€œgiven:Ì›ÓÓÌà8 àProsecutor:€à àAre€those€[symptoms]€consistent€with€the€history€that€sheÏgave€to€you€of€having€been€sexually€attacked€by€her€boss€at€work?ÌÌà8 àDr.€Gould:à àYes,€these€are€all€symptoms€that€are€consistent€with€theÏnature€of€the€assault.ÌÌà8 àProsecutor:à àDo€you€have€an€opinion,€based€upon€a€reasonableÏdegree€of€medical€certainty,€certainly€consistent€with€your€profession,Ïthat€these€symptoms€are€related€and€are€the€result€of€that?ÌÌà8 àDr.€Gould:à àYes.ÌÌAn€objection€by€defense€counsel€at€that€point€was€again€œoverruled.Ì›ÌÌÓÓà àIn€both€the€pre„trial€motion€hearing€and€at€trial,€both€the€State€and€the€trialÏjudge€acknowledged€that€òòState€v.€Ballard,€óó855€S.W.2d€557€(Tenn.€1993),€and€relatedÏcases€involving€child€sexual€abuse€control€and€limit€the€admission€of€expertÏtestimony€on€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome.€€The€State€and€the€Defendant€agree€onÏappeal€that€òòBallardóó€is€the€controlling€case,€although€the€parties€apply€the€case€veryÏdifferently€to€the€facts€of€the€case€òòsub€judice.€€óóIn€òòBallard,€óóthe€criminal€defendant€wasÍcharged€with€aggravated€sexual€battery€on€a€minor.€€An€expert€had€been€allowed€toÏtestify€at€trial€that€four€children€œÌwhom›€Ms.€Ballard€was€accused€of€sexually€abusing€exhibited€ð ðsymptomÏconstellationsðð€consistent€with€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome€and€that,€in€theÏexpertððs€opinion,€the€ð ðstresserðð€precipitating€the€syndrome€in€the€children€was€sexualÏabuse.€€òòIdóó.€at€561.€€Among€the€symptoms€of€sexual€abuse€were€bed„wetting,€clinging,Ïfear,€irritability,€nightmares,€anxiety,€and€discipline€problems€at€school.€€òòId.óóÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€Supreme€Court€acknowledged€the€expertððs€expertise€on€theÏpsychological€effects€of€child€sexual€abuse,€but€found€that€an€evaluation€of€theÏprobative€value€of€the€testimony€versus€its€prejudicial€effect€had€to€be€made.€€òòId.óó€€TheÏSupreme€Court€described€as€follows€the€danger€of€questionable€expert€testimonyÏand€the€nature€of€the€examination€that€should€be€made€to€determine€whether€suchÏevidence€should€be€admitted:ÌÓÓÌÓ)` °ƒXz ³ÀˆXB'0*ŒX)Óà0 àà àà0 àà àà8 àà àIn€the€context€of€a€criminal€trial,€expert€scientific€testimony€solicits€theÏdanger€of€undue€prejudice€or€confusing€the€issues€or€misleading€the€juryÏbecause€of€its€aura€of€special€reliability€and€trustworthiness.€€òòUnited€States€v.ÏGreen,€óó548€F.2d€1261€(6th€Cir.1977).€€This€ð ðspecial€auraðð€of€expert€scientificÏtestimony,€especially€testimony€concerning€personality€profiles€of€sexuallyÏabused€children,€may€lead€a€jury€to€abandon€its€responsibility€as€fact€finderÏand€adopt€the€judgment€of€the€expert.€€Such€evidence€carries€strong€potentialÏto€prejudice€a€defendantððs€cause€by€encouraging€a€jury€to€conclude€thatÏbecause€the€children€have€been€identified€by€an€expert€to€exhibit€behaviorÏconsistent€with€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome,€brought€on€by€sexual€abuse,Ïthen€it€is€more€likely€that€the€defendant€committed€the€crime.€€òòSee€Bussey€v.ÏCommonwealth,€óó697€S.W.2d€139,€141€(Ky.1985);€òòState€v.€Maule,€óó35ÏWash.App.€287,€667€P.2d€96€(1983).€€Testimony€that€children€exhibitÏsymptoms€or€œcharacteristics›€of€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome€should€notÍsuffice€to€confirm€the€fact€of€sexual€abuse.€€òòSchimpf,€óósupra€at€193.€€TheÏsymptoms€of€the€syndrome€are€ð ðnot€like€a€fingerprint€in€that€it€can€clearlyÏidentify€the€perpetrator€of€a€crime.ðð€€òòMitchell€v.€Commonwealth,€óó777€S.W.2dÏ930,€932€(Ky.€1989).€€Expert€testimony€of€this€type€invades€the€province€of€theÏjury€to€decide€on€the€creditability€of€witnesses.ÌÌà0 àà àà8 à€€€€€à àWe€are€also€troubled€by€the€accuracy€and€reliability€of€expert€testimonyÏinvolving€the€emotional€and€psychological€characteristics€of€sexually€abusedÏchildren.€€When€expert€testimony€involves€a€novel€kind€of€scientific€basis€thatÏhas€not€received€judicial€approval,€a€court€must€first€determine€whether€theÏbasis€upon€which€the€testimony€is€built€is€reliable€enough€to€assist€the€jury€toÏreach€an€accurate€result.€€òòSee,€United€States€v.€Brown,€óó557€F.2d€541€(6thÏCir.1977).€€The€State€advanced€no€evidence€at€trial€that€the€facts€underlyingÏDr.€Luscombððs€testimony€were€of€a€type€reasonably€relied€on€by€experts€in€theÏparticular€field,€òòTenn.R.Evid.€óó703,€œorÌÌà àthat›€it€is€possible€to€make€a€statement€that€sexually€abused€children€willÏexhibit€œà àthe›€same€characteristics€or€traits.ÌÌà8 à€€€€à àIn€Tennessee€the€qualifications,€admissibility,€relevancy€andÏcompetency€of€expert€testimony€are€matters€which€largely€rest€withinÏthe€sound€discretion€of€the€trial€court.€€òòState€v.€Rhoden,€óó739€S.W.2d€6Ï(Tenn.€Cr.App.1987).€€Such€discretion,€however,€is€not€absolute€andÏmay€be€overturned€on€appeal€where€the€discretion€is€arbitrarilyÏexercised.€€òòBaggett€v.€State,€óó220€Tenn.€592,€598,€421€S.W.2d€629,€632Ï(1967).òòÌÌœòòóóBallard›œ,€óó855€S.W.2d€›€at€561,€562.ÌÌÌÓÓà àExamining€the€specifics€of€the€expertððs€testimony€in€òòBallard,€óóthe€SupremeÏCourt€rejected€it€because€it€was€contrary€to€the€opinions€expressed€in€œnumerous›Ïscholarly€works€researched€and€identified€by€name€by€the€Court€and€because€theÏexperts€list€of€symptoms€was€ð ðtoo€generic.ðð€€òòId.€óóat€562.€€The€testimony€of€the€expertÏwas€not€reliable€enough€to€ð ðsubstantially€assistðð€the€jury€in€determining€whether€aÏchild€sexual€abuse€had€occurred,€the€criteria€contained€in€Tennessee€Rule€ofÍEvidence€702.€€òòId.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àóóThe€testimony€of€the€two€experts€in€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€is€considerably€lessÏreliable€than€the€expert€testimony€in€òòBallard.óó€€In€the€present€case,€neither€expertÏtestified€to€any€particular€expertise€in€identifying€the€symptoms€of€sexual€battery€or€ofÏidentifying€the€causes€of€or€ð ðstressorsðð€causing€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome.€ÏNeither€expert€testified€that€any€court€had€previously€accepted€his€or€her€testimonyÏon€the€causes€of€a€particular€case€of€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome€or€accepted€hisÏor€her€testimony€about€what€symptoms€generally€follow€from€sexual€battery€or€whatÏstressors€generally€cause€particular€clusters€of€symptoms.€€The€two€experts€cite€noÏscholarly€study€on€the€subject€and€did€not€administer€a€battery€of€psychological€testsÏon€the€alleged€victim.€€Unlike€the€expert€in€òòBallard,€óóit€was€not€established€that€theÏexperts€in€the€present€case€were€even€qualified€to€render€an€opinion€on€causation€ofÏsymptoms.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIn€òòBallard,€óóthe€experts€purported€to€tie€a€set€of€symptoms€to€child€sex€abuse,Ïbut€the€expert€did€not€pretend€to€tie€the€symptoms€to€a€particular€alleged€perpetrator.€ÏIn€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó,€because€of€the€way€the€prosecutor€asked€his€questions,€theÏexperts€actually€tied€Ms.€Wilhoitððs€symptoms€to€a€particular€assailant,€identified€as€herÏð ðboss.ðð€€Nothing€in€the€record€comes€close€to€qualifying€the€experts€to€tie€symptomsÏto€a€particular€assailant€or€to€the€genre€of€boss€assailants.€€The€list€of€symptomsÏdescribed€by€these€two€experts€is€no€less€generic€than€the€symptoms€criticized€onÍthat€grounds€in€òòBallard.óóÌÓÓÌÓÓà àBoth€the€trial€judge€in€his€initial€ruling€òòin€limineóó€and€the€State€on€appeal€makeÏa€distinction€between€expert€testimony€that€the€symptoms€prove€the€crime€and€theÏkind€of€testimony€given€by€these€two€experts,€that€the€symptoms€are€ð ðconsistentðð€withÏthe€crime€œcharged.›€€This€is€still€an€effort€to€prove€the€crime€(and€even€the€identity€ofÏthe€criminal)€based€upon€the€presence€of€the€symptoms,€even€though€the€declarationÏof€consistency€is€less€strong€than€œa›€statement€that€the€symptoms€were€caused€by€aÏsexual€assault.€€The€presence€or€absence€of€psychological€harm€from€the€sexualÏbattery€is€not€a€separate€element€of€the€crime€of€sexual€battery€which€must€beÏproved;€if€the€Defendant€forcibly€ran€his€hand€down€the€victimððs€shorts€while€holdingÏher€in€a€headlock€against€her€will,€he€committed€the€crime,€regardless€of€whether€theÏvictim€had€post„traumatic€stress€syndrome€days€or€weeks€later.€€The€prosecutorððsÏquestion€was€clearly€intended€to€prove€the€fact€of€an€assault€and€the€identity€of€theÏassailant€based€on€symptoms€observed€later.€€The€Supreme€Court€in€òòBallardóóÏsummarized€the€expertððs€testimony€as€being€that€the€symptoms€observed€wereÏð ðconsistentðð€with€child€sexual€abuse.€€òòId.€óóat€œ561.›€€Clearly€the€testimony€of€the€expertsÏin€the€case€òòsub€judiceóó€could€not€substantially€assist€the€œjury.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€majority€opinion€of€this€court€in€òòState€v.€Schimpf,€óó782€S.W.2d€186,€(Tenn.ÏCr.App.€1989),€a€case€relied€upon€in€òòBallard,€óósets€out€a€list€of€principles€that€apply€toÏthe€admission€of€expert€testimony€in€general.€€The€expert€evidence€must€not€invadeÍthe€province€of€the€jury,€must€be€used€only€when€the€jurors€themselves€are€notÏequipped€to€draw€correct€conclusions€from€the€facts€proved,€and€must€neitherÏmislead€nor€confuse€the€jury.€€òòSchimpf,€óóat€192.€€The€expert€evidence€should€notÏrelate€to€credibility€of€witnesses.€€òòId.€€óóIn€the€case€òòsub€judice,€óóthe€testimony€of€the€twoÏexperts€invaded€the€province€of€the€jury€by€bolstering€the€credibility€of€the€victim€andÏdiminishing€the€credibility€of€the€Defendant.€€The€jury€itself€could€determine€whetherÏthe€victim€behaved€and€looked€like€a€victim€of€sexual€battery€immediately€after€theÏalleged€assault€based€on€the€fact€that€the€plant€foreman€saw€the€victim€before€sheÏeven€left€the€Defendantððs€office€and€described€her€at€trial.€€The€evidence€could€haveÏmisled€the€jury€into€believing€that€a€victimððs€symptoms€€suggest€€not€only€the€fact€of€aÏsexual€assault€but€also€the€identity€of€the€assailant.€€›ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€State€contends€that€the€admission€of€this€evidence€was€harmless€error€if€itÏwas€error.€€There€is€in€fact€one€sound€argument€for€the€proposition€that€the€testimonyÏhere,€though€less€reliable€than€the€òòBallardóó€testimony,€was€also€less€harmful.€ÏœDefense›€counsel€skillfully€had€the€experts€concede€that€the€symptoms€observedÏwere€also€consistent€with€spousal€physical€abuse,€of€which€Ms.€Wilhoit€had€been€aÏvictim.€€On€the€other€hand,€the€experts€here€purport€to€tie€symptoms€to€a€particularÏassailant,€the€boss,€and€not€just€to€tie€symptoms€to€a€kind€of€assault,€increasing€theÏchances€of€harm.€€In€addition,€review€of€the€record€of€the€trial€as€a€whole€reveals€thatÏthe€trial€largely€came€down€to€which€of€the€only€two€witnesses€to€the€event€was€moreÏcredible.€€If€one€witness€could€have€her€credibility€ð ðblessedðð€by€the€testimony€of€anÍexpert€tying€her€psychological€profile€to€the€crime€she€described€and€œto€the›€accusedÏshe€identified,€then€the€œlikelihood›Ìgoes€up€dramatically€of€her€being€believed€over€the€one€other€witness€to€the€event.€ÏThe€error€could€not€be€said€to€be€harmless.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àœIf€the€inadmissible€expert€testimony€had€been€properly€excluded,€the€otherÏevidence€in€the€case€might€have€been€sufficient€to€support€a€guilty€verdict.€€Again,›€theÏcredibility€of€the€two€witnesses€to€the€œincident,›€Defendant€and€alleged€victim,€whoÏtold€dramatically€different€versions€of€the€facts,€was€the€real€issue€in€the€case.€€ThereÏis€evidence€in€the€record€that€could€very€well€have€convinced€a€jury€that€theÏDefendantððs€story€was€incredible€and€that€Ms.€Wilhoitððs€story€was€entirely€œcredible,Ïeven€though€it€cannot€be€said€that€the€jury€was€not€significantly€influenced€by€theÏimproper€evidenceÌÌwhen€they€decided€credibility.›€€The€jury€was€in€a€superior€position€to€observe€theÏdemeanor€of€the€witnesses€and€to€access€their€credibility.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àIt€is€not€necessary€that€the€other€issues€in€the€case€be€reached.€€Exclusion€ofÏthe€Stateððs€expert€testimony€would€eliminate€most€of€any€need€that€existed€toÏproduce€eleven€year€old€psychological€records€on€the€alleged€victim.€€Evidence€ofÏspousal€physical€abuse€of€the€victim€should€have€been€and€ultimately€was€admitted,Ïbeing€at€the€very€least€relevant€to€the€issue€of€the€sources€of€physical€injuries€that€theÍalleged€victim€had€after€the€alleged€sexual€battery.€€At€a€second€trial,€the€spouse€ofÏthe€alleged€victim€can€be€and€should€be€prevented€from€making€the€kind€of€outburstsÏthat€he€made,€contrary€to€the€trial€courtððs€instructions,€at€the€first€trial.€€At€a€second€trialÏthe€trial€judge€will€no€doubt€avoid€any€reference€to€the€relationship€between€theÏprosecuting€officer€and€the€bailiff,€or€perhaps€he€can€provide€a€substitute€bailiff€forÏthis€particular€trial.€€Review€of€the€application€of€the€appropriate€sentence€standardsÏcan€occur€when€and€if€there€is€a€second€conviction€and€a€second€sentencingÏhearing.ÌÓÓÌÓÓà àThe€judgment€of€the€trial€court€is€reversed€and€the€case€is€remanded€for€a€newÏtrial.òòÌÓÓÓÓÌÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà à€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àóóLEE€RUSSELL,€SPECIAL€JUDGEÌÌÌÌCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________ÌWILLIAM€M.€BARKER,€JUDGEÌÌÌ____________________________ÌJOHN€K.€BYERS,€SENIOR€JUDGEÌòòÌÓ  ÓÌóó