State v. Meighan

In order for sexual assault diagnosis to be admissible, it must tell the jury something that it could not determine as well on its own by showing that the physical evidence meaningfully corroborates the diagnosis, the expert “significantly relied on the physical evidence in making the diagnosis, and the diagnosis involves a complex factual determination that a lay person cannot make as well as an expert. State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 354 P.3d 680 (2015).

Defendant appealed a judgment of conviction for two counts of first-degree rape, one count of second-degree rape, and four counts of first-degree sexual abuse. Defendant assigned error to the trial court's decision to admit evidence from an expert that diagnosed the alleged victim with chronic child sexual abuse. Defendant argued that the diagnosis failed to satisfy two of the three requirements for the test for admissibility set forth in State v. Beauvais, 357 Or 524, 354 P.3d 680 (2015). Beauvais is applied when deciding whether a diagnosis of child sexual abuse is admissible under OEC 403 when physical evidence of abuse is present. Id at 534. Beauvais states that in order for the diagnosis to be admissible, it must “tell the jury something that it could not determine as well on its own” by showing that the physical evidence “meaningfully corroborate[s] the diagnosis,” the expert “significantly rel[ied]” on the physical evidence in making the diagnosis, and the diagnosis  involves a complex factual determination “that a lay person cannot make as well as an expert.” Id at 537-38. The Court rejected Defendant's argument because the report of abuse was corroborated by physical injuries or symptoms that the expert knew were consistent with the alleged abuse. The Court held that Beauvais does not require that the physical evidence can be corroborative only if it has a single cause — sexual abuse or assault. Affirmed.