Appeals court hears challenge to expert testimony, delayed-report statistics in State v. Francis

SALT LAKE CITY — The Utah Court of Appeals on Tuesday heard argument in State v. Francis over whether expert testimony about patterns of delayed reporting and other generalized statements about victims’ behavior improperly bolstered sexual-assault allegations and whether the trial court erred by refusing a lesser-included-offense instruction.

The case was argued before Judge Ryan Tenney, joined by Judges Harris and Mortensen. Natalie Scabine, representing the appellant Mr. Francis, told the court the expert’s testimony mixed clinical anecdotes and literature in a way that made a numeric presentation especially prejudicial to the defense. "The testimony was that this is coming from both his experience and keeping up with the literature," Scabine told the panel, arguing that the combination made the evidence sound more scientific and risked encouraging the jury to treat generalized statistics as dispositive in assessing credibility.

The prosecutor, Tara Peterson, countered that the expert relied on both research and clinical practice and said the record showed the witness had told the trial court he based opinions on both. "Off of both, and I'd like to point the court to several places in the evidentiary hearing where the expert made that clear," Peterson said, urging the court to uphold the trial court’s decision to admit the…