Sedano, People v. (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 474 - Athar A. Khan

# People v. Sedano (2023) ___ Cal.App.5th ___, 304 Cal.Rptr.3rd 743 # Expert testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS), including statistics, was admissible to dispel certain myths and misconceptions about abuse victims. **INTRODUCTION**: Family law attorneys and others handling abuse cases should know the rules regarding the admissibility of expert testimony in these matters. This case deals with CSAAS, but similar rules apply to what used to be called battered woman’s syndrome. (People v. Brown (2004) 33 Cal.4th 892.) **FACTS**: An uncle was convicted of sexually abusing his niece from the time she was 5 to age 18. The niece did not report the abuse until she was 18 or 19. The prosecution called an expert who met none of the participants and was only there to explain the research on CSAAS. He testified that five groups of symptoms or behaviors of victims are secrecy; helplessness; entrapment and accommodation; delayed, conflicted, and/or unconvincing disclosure; and reaction. He testified that 94 percent of victims had a pre-existing relationship with the molester. Also, 74 percent had not disclosed the abuse one year after the molestation and 50 percent had not disclosed five years later. **HELD**: This testimony was admissible. CSAAS is admissible only to dispel commonly held myths or misconceptions about child sexual abuse and aiding the jury in evaluating the alleged victim’s credibility. (_Id_. at p. ___.) Such testimony must not cross over into affirmatively vouching for the truthfulness of the allegations. (_Id_. at p. ___.) It is not admissible to prove that the complaining witness was abused. (_Id_. at p. ___.) The testimony may not describe the components of the syndrome to allow the jury to apply that evidence to the case facts and conclude the child was abused. (_Id_. at p. ___.) The evidence here, including the statistical evidence, properly targeted common misconceptions regarding child sexual abuse. (_Id_. at p. ___ and p. ___.) **PRACTICE POINTERS AND COMMENTARY**: I often wonder why such expert testimony is rarely used in family law settings. It should at least be considered in presenting cases to bench officers with little background in abuse matters who may rely on misconceptions—such as about delayed reporting—in ruling against an abuse victim. As noted in the introduction, similar testimony is also permissible in domestic violence matters. Attorneys defending such matters must be vigilant that the testimony does not stray beyond permissible bounds. This case also reminds us of another important point—experts such as DCFS investigators, police, or custody evaluators cannot opine that the alleged abuse occurred.  ## Citation reference People v. Sedano (2023) 88 Cal.App.5th 474 > [!info] Working notes > This is a personal working note. Citation details are for reference; opinion and current-status verification may still be pending.