SUPREME COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA REVERSES CONVICTION AND ORDERS NEW TRIAL FOR MAN CONVICTED OF RAPE BASED UPON IMPROPERLY ADMITTED EXPERT TESTIMONY

After being convicted of rape and related offenses and sentenced to nearly 30 to 60 years in prison, Attorney Noel’s client appealed to the Superior Court of Pennsylvania.  On appeal, Attorney Noel argued that highly prejudicial testimony from a detective, which took the form of expert opinion evidence and which tended to impermissibly bolster the credibility of the accuser, was admitted against her client without the detective being properly qualified by the Commonwealth as an expert witness.  Finding that the testimony was not expert in nature, the Superior Court upheld the convictions.

Undeterred, Attorney Noel filed a petition for allowance of appeal, requesting that the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania accept discretionary review of and answer the following questions: (1) whether testimony from a detective about victim responses and behaviors, when based on that detective’s training, experience and specialized knowledge, constitutes expert testimony, and (2) if so, whether such expert testimony is inadmissible under the well-established precedents of the Supreme Court, which prohibit expert testimony on matters involving the credibility of witnesses.

The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania granted Attorney Noel’s petition for allowance of appeal and, in a unanimous opinion, reversed her client’s convictions for rape and related sex offenses.  The Supreme Court held that the at-issue testimony was indeed expert testimony and, because the Commonwealth failed to qualify the witness as an expert, the testimony was improperly admitted.  Further, the Supreme Court reviewed its own prior precedents and found that, although some expert testimony concerning victim responses and behaviors is admissible, it may not touch upon matters of witness credibility because to do so would invade the jury’s role as arbiter of credibility.