State v. Browder
SimpleOriginal

Summary

The HI Supreme Court vacated a sexual assault conviction, holding that prosecutors cannot characterize a witness as “traumatized” without expert testimony because trauma has a psychological meaning beyond common understanding.

2024 | State Juristiction

State v. Browder

Keywords sexual assault conviction; vacated; traumatized; expert testimony; psychological meaning; common understanding; witness; trauma
Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Hawaii Supreme Court recently overturned a sexual assault conviction. The Court determined that prosecutors are not permitted to describe a witness as "traumatized" unless an expert witness provides testimony to support this claim. This is because the term "trauma" has a specific psychological definition that goes beyond its everyday use.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The Hawaii Supreme Court recently overturned a sexual assault conviction. The Court determined that prosecutors are not permitted to describe a witness as "traumatized" unless an expert provides testimony to support such a claim. This decision was based on the understanding that "trauma" has a specific psychological meaning that goes beyond what most people commonly understand.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The HI Supreme Court recently overturned a sexual assault conviction. The court ruled that prosecutors cannot describe a witness as "traumatized" unless an expert witness provides testimony to support this claim. The reasoning behind this decision is that the term "trauma" has a specific psychological meaning that goes beyond what most people commonly understand.

Open Case as PDF

Summary

The HI Supreme Court overturned a conviction for sexual assault. The court said that lawyers cannot describe a witness as "traumatized" unless an expert speaks about it. This is because "trauma" is a special word in psychology, and its meaning is more than what most people think.

Open Case as PDF

Footnotes and Citation

Cite

State v. Folk, 151 Idaho 327, 256 P.3d 735 (2011)

Highlights