1193. Testimony on Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome

You have heard testimony from <insert name of expert> regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome.

______'s <insert name of expert> testimony about child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome is not evidence that the defendant committed any of the crimes charged against (him/ her).

You may consider this evidence only in deciding whether or not ______'s <insert name of alleged victim of abuse> conduct was not inconsistent with the conduct of someone who has been molested, and in evaluating the believability of (his/her) testimony.

Bench Notes

Instructional Duty

The court has a sua sponte duty to give this instruction if an expert testifies on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome. (People v. Housley (1992) 6 Cal.App.4th 947, 958-959 [9 Cal.Rtpr.2d 431]; but see People v. Sanchez (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 721, 736 [256 Cal.Rptr. 446] and People v. Stark (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 107, 116 [261 Cal.Rptr. 479] [instruction required only on request].)

Related Instructions

If this instruction is given, also give CALCRIM No. 303, Limited Purpose Evidence in General, and CALCRIM No. 332, Expert Witness.

Authority

Eliminate Juror Misconceptions or Rebut Attack on Victim's Credibility. People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 385, 393-394 [249 Cal.Rptr. 886].

Secondary Sources

1 Witkin, California Evidence (4th ed. 2000) Opinion Evidence, §§ 53-55.

3 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 71, Scientific and Expert Evidence, § 71.04[1][d][v][B] (Matthew Bender).

6 Millman, Sevilla & Tarlow, California Criminal Defense Practice, Ch. 142, Crimes Against the Person, § 142.23[3][d] (Matthew Bender).

Commentary

The jurors must understand that the research on child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome assumes a molestation occurred and seeks to describe and explain children's common reactions to the experience. (People v. Bowker (1988) 203 Cal.App.3d 385, 394 [249 Cal.Rptr. 886].) However, it is unnecessary and potentially misleading to instruct that the expert testimony assumes that a molestation has in fact occurred. (See People v. Gilbert (1992) 5 Cal.App.4th 1372, 1387 [7 Cal.Rptr.2d 660].)

The prosecution must identify the myth or misconception the evidence is designed to rebut (People v. Bowker, supra, 203 Cal.App.3d at p. 394; People v. Sanchez (1989) 208 Cal.App.3d 721, 735 [256 Cal.Rptr. 446]; People v. Harlan (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 439, 449-450 [271 Cal.Rptr. 653]), or the victim's credibility must have been placed in issue (People v. Patino (1994) 26 Cal.App.4th 1737, 1744-1745 [32 Cal.Rptr.2d 345]).

Related Issues

Expert Testimony Regarding Parent's Behavior

An expert may also testify regarding reasons why a parent may delay reporting molestation of his or her child. (People v. McAlpin (1991) 53 Cal.3d 1289, 1300-1301 [283 Cal.Rptr. 382, 812 P.2d 563].)

(New January 2006)