green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
21.0 score
G Cite
cited 2× by 1 distinct case, last quoted 2009 ·
…an expert witness's testimony that the behavior of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse is consistent with behavior observed in sexually abused children is admissible under the ohio rules of evidence.
at p. 883
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1998 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1998
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 21 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sanderson v. Commonwealth
(2×)
an expert witness's testimony that the behavior of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse is consistent with behavior observed in sexually abused children is admissible under the ohio rules of evidence.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Padilla-Torres v. Warden, London Correctional Institution
However, an expert may provide testimony that supports “the truth of the facts testified to by the child, or which assists the fact finder in assessing the child's veracity.” (Emphasis deleted.) Stowers at 262-63, 690 N.E.2d 881 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Kidder
(2×)
In State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260, 261 , 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998), the Supreme Court clarified its syllabus in Boston, and held “[a]n expert witness's testimony that the behavior of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse is consistent with the behavior observed in sexually abused children is admissible under the Ohio Rules of Evidence.” Stowers at 261, 690 N.E.2d 881 . “ ‘Most jurors would not be aware, in their everyday experiences, of how sexually abused children might respond to abuse.’ ” Id. at 262, 690 N.E.2d 881 , quoting Boston at 128, 545 N.E.2d 1220 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Remy
(2×)
However, a distinction exists "between expert testimony that a child witness is telling the truth and evidence which bolsters a child's credibility insofar as it supports the prosecution's efforts to prove that a child has been abused." (Emphasis sic.) Stowers at 262, 690 N.E.2d 881 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Harris
(2×)
Stowers at 262, 690 N.E.2d 881 , quoting State v. Boston , 46 Ohio St.3d 108 , 128, 545 N.E.2d 1220 (1989). {¶ 41} In this case, the trial court determined that Gula qualified as an expert witness in the area of child sex abuse.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State v. Ross
(2×)
In State v. Stowers , 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 261, 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998), the Supreme Court clarified its syllabus in Boston , and held "[a]n expert witness's testimony that the behavior of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse is consistent with the behavior observed in sexually abused children is admissible under the Ohio Rules of Evidence." Stowers at 261, 690 N.E.2d 881 . " 'Most jurors would not be aware, in their everyday experiences, of how sexually abused children might respond to abuse.' " Id. at 262, 690 N.E.2d 881 , quoting Boston at 128, 545 N.E.2d 1220 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
State of Iowa v. Patrick Michael Dudley
(2×)
See Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770 , 51 A.3d at 1015 n. 26 (surveying cases); see also United States v. Lukashov, 694 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th Cir.2012) ("We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing [the doctor] to testify about the characteristics that she looks for when assessing a child victim's story of sexual abuse, and to opine that her evaluation of [the child] was consistent with [the child’s] allegations of sexual abuse.”); Steward v. State, 636 N.E.2d 143, 146 (Ind.Ct.App.1994) (“Indiana courts have consistently allowed expert testimony concerning whether …
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Amended February 10, 2015 State of Iowa v. Patrick Michael Dudley
See People 2See Favoccia, 51 A.3d at 1015 n.26 (surveying cases); see also United States v. Lukashov, 694 F.3d 1107, 1116 (9th Cir. 2012) (“We conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in allowing [the doctor] to testify about the characteristics that she looks for when assessing a child victim’s story of sexual abuse, and to opine that her evaluation of [the child] was consistent with [the child’s] allegations of sexual abuse.”); Steward v. State, 636 N.E.2d 143, 146 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (“Indiana courts have consistently allowed expert testimony concerning wheth…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Wayne Lewis Charley
(2×)
See Broderick v. King’s Way Assembly of God, 808 P.2d 1211, 1216-17 (Alaska 1991); Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 220 (Fla.1988); State v. Hester, 114 Idaho 688 , 760 P.2d 27, 31-32 (Idaho 1988); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (Mont.1986); Townsend v. State, 103 Nev. 113 , 734 P.2d 705, 708 (Nev.1987); State v. Figured, 116 N.C.App. 1 , 446 S.E.2d 838, 842-43 (N.C.App.1994); State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 690 N.E.2d 881, 883 (Ohio 1998); State v. Wilson, 121 Or.App. 460 , 855 P.2d 657, 660 (Or.App.1993); Joh nson v. State, 970 S.W.2d 716, 721 (Tex.Crim.App.199…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United States v. Charley
(2×)
See Broderick v. King's Way Assembly of God, 808 P.2d 1211, 1216-17 (Alaska 1991); Glendening v. State, 536 So.2d 212, 220 (Fla.1988); State v. Hester, 114 Idaho 688 , 760 P.2d 27, 31-32 (Idaho 1988); State v. Geyman, 224 Mont. 194 , 729 P.2d 475, 479 (Mont.1986); Townsend v. State, 103 Nev. 113 , 734 P.2d 705, 708 (Nev.1987); State v. Figured, 116 N.C.App. 1 , 446 S.E.2d 838, 842-43 (N.C.Ct.App.1994); State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 690 N.E.2d 881, 883 (Ohio 1998); State v. Wilson, 121 Or.App. 460 , 855 P.2d 657, 660 (Or.Ct.App.1993); Johnson v. State, 970 S.W.2d 716, 721 (Tex.App.1998)…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Graham
See State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260, 263 , 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998). {¶13} Next, Appellant claims the alleged bolstering error was compounded in the rebuttal portion of closing arguments where the prosecutor noted the employee received texts and phone calls, recited other evidence, and then said: “We’ve got a phone, We’ve Case No. 21 MA 0060 –6– got texts.
discussed
Cited "see"
R.Y.D. v. M.M.
See State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260, 262 , 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998) (Internal quotations omitted.) (“Most jurors would not be aware, in their everyday experiences, of how sexually abused children might respond to abuse. * * * [T]he common experience of a juror may represent a less-than-adequate foundation for assessing whether a child has been sexually abused.”) Colliers [a social worker] provided the jury with her professional insight to allow the jury to better assess, examine, and scrutinize [the victim] J.S.'s statements about the incident, as well as understand the overall evidence o…
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Svoboda
See Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d at 264 , 690 N.E.2d 881 ; J.L.G., 234 N.J. at 296 , 190 A.3d 442 .4 Regardless, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Powers’s testimony when its admission was clearly supported by the Supreme Court’s holding in Stowers.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Burge
See State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St. 3d 260, 262 , 690 N.E.2d 881 (1988). {¶34} Appellant argues Carrie Schnirring was permitted to testify concerning the consistency of R.B.’s statements to Spencer, Edgein, and herself.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. West
See State v. Stowers (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 262, 690 N.E.2d 881 . {¶ 86} Like all evidence presented by the state in a criminal case, Ms. Pelletier-Capitini's testimony was intended to prejudice Appellant by increasing the likelihood of his conviction, but Appellant has presented no specific argument as to how he was unfairly prejudiced by this testimony.
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Lawson
See State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio st.3d 260, 262-263, 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998) {¶23} Third, even if we assume that Freihofer’s testimony was improper, both F.K. and Z.C. testified at trial and were subjected to cross-examination by Lawson.
cited
Cited "see"
Houston v. State
See State v. Sowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 263, 1998-Ohio-632 , 690 N.E.2d 881 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Nemeth
(2×)
See State v. Stowers (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 260, 262 , 690 N.E.2d 881, 883-884 .
discussed
Cited "see"
State v. Nemeth
(2×)
See State v. Stowers (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 260 , 690 N.E.2d 881 . 6 January Term, 1998 1962.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
State v. Rose
See, e.g., State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260, 263 , 690 N.E.2d 881 (1998) (Boston “does not proscribe testimony which is additional support for the truth of the facts testified to by the child, or which assists the fact finder in assessing the child's veracity”). {¶36} We also note testimony offered by a police officer can be characterized as lay testimony even where it is based on the officer's specialized knowledge.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Northfield Homes, Inc.
v.
Village of Northfield
v.
Village of Northfield
No. 97-2531.
Ohio Supreme Court.
Mar 11, 1998.
Kenneth J. Fisher Co., L.P.A., Kenneth J. Fisher and Robert G. Mansour; Williams & Batchelder and William G. Batchelder III, for appellant., Joseph W. Diemert, Jr., Director of Law, and Bradric T. Bryan, Assistant Director of Law, for appellee.
Cook, Douglas, Moyer, Pfeifer, Resnick, Stratton, Sweeney.
Cited by 3 opinions | Published
The judgment of the court of appeals is affirmed on the authority of Goldberg Cos., Inc. v. Richmond Hts. City Council (1998), 81 Ohio St.3d 207, 690 N.E.2d 510, decided today.
[*260] Moyer, C.J., Douglas, Resnick, F.E. Sweeney, Cook and Lundberg Stratton, JJ., concur. Pfeifer, J., dissents.