A child-abuse expert can testify about whether a “not normal” mark found on an 8-year-old girl’s genitals indicates the child was sexually abused, a judge in Pulaski County Circuit Court ruled Monday, rejecting a defense challenge.
But Circuit Judge Leon Johnson said he might reconsider depending on what the child says next month at the rape trial of Antonio Bryles, 32.
After hearing Dr. Karen Farst testify at Monday’s hearing, Johnson said he was concerned that her testimony about her medical opinion might confuse jurors or become too prejudicial to Bryles.
“It’s a tricky spot to be in,” the judge said.
Defense attorney Willard Proctor Jr. sought to have Farst limited to testifying only about her findings from a November 2010 examination of the girl in which Farst observed the “defect” on the girl.
Farst said the mark was a healing penetration injury. Proctor told the judge she shouldn’t be allowed to say any more at trial.
“Keep her within her expertise,” Proctor asked the judge.
Farst’s opinion relies too much on claims made by the girl and doesn’t meet the legal standard for expert testimony, Proctor said.
Proctor argued Farst should be prohibited from opining on what caused the mark because she can’t say with a reasonable amount of certainty whether it was caused by an accident or deliberate act and what could have inflicted it.
Deputy prosecutor Robbie Jones argued that Farst’s opinion was legitimate evidence for jurors to consider since it is based on “well-tested methodology” that has been in place for more than a decade. Farst, a pediatrician at Arkansas Children’s Hospital with a practice that focuses mainly on at-risk children, is board-certified in both pediatrics and child-abuse pediatrics.
He said prosecutors won’t ask her to make definitive statements about how the girl received the mark, but only if the defect is “consistent” with rape and sexual assault. The defense can question her about whether the mark is consistent with its theory that it was the result of an accident, Jones told the judge.
Farst testified that she examined the girl in November 2010 in the hospital emergency room after the girl had reported a sexual assault.
The mark was “not normal,” and its type is seldom seen outside of a sexual-assault case, Farst said. It would be “very rare” for it not to be from an assault, she testified.
The judge also ordered Jones to question the girl more about her accusations to provide more definitive answers to the defense about her claims. Proctor said prosecutors had not given him enough details about what the girl said to prepare a defense.
Bryles, whom Proctor said likely would testify, is accused of raping the girl sometime in a two-year period, but his defense has not been given enough information about how often she claims she was raped or where the assaults were supposed to have happened, Proctor said.
Arkansas, Pages 11 on 02/26/2014