No. A child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome (CSAAS) expert may explain certain behaviors—such as delayed or inconsistent disclosure, recantation, continued affection, or patchy recall—when a related misconception needs to be addressed or the alleged victim’s credibility is genuinely disputed. The testimony is not a diagnosis, proof that abuse occurred, or proof that the accused committed a crime.
In People v. Bowker, the court explained that CSAAS should address a specific misconception suggested by the evidence, not predict that abuse occurred. The CALCRIM No. 1193 commentary also addresses testimony when the alleged victim’s credibility is placed in issue. The expert may not tell jurors that accusations are generally true or that the child in this case was abused. The testimony should remain tied to behavior the jury heard about and the expert’s proper field.
Test the proposed testimony and its factual basis
Review the prosecution’s expert notice, reports, interview or disclosure timeline, and trial theory. Identify each behavior the expert will discuss and the specific misconception or disputed credibility issue the testimony is meant to address. Under Evidence Code section 801, the opinion must concern a subject beyond common experience and rest on an adequate basis. The court may exclude evidence under section 352 when its probative value is substantially outweighed by undue time or a substantial danger of undue prejudice, confusion, or misleading the jury. A focused admissibility hearing under section 402 may be requested where preliminary facts are disputed; it is not automatic for every CSAAS objection.
Courts have upheld testimony limited to actual disputed behaviors, including when a complainant who described childhood events testifies as an adult. People v. Flores does not make delayed disclosure alone a bar to expert testimony. By contrast, People v. Lapenias treated an expert’s claim that false child accusations are rare as improper, but the error did not automatically require reversal on that record. These cases turn on the specific testimony and trial record.
If the court admits the testimony, CALCRIM No. 1193 explains that jurors may use it only to evaluate the alleged child’s behavior and credibility, not as proof the defendant committed a charged or uncharged crime. Request the limiting instruction and record the court’s ruling rather than assuming the judge must give it without request. The instruction does not decide whether the witness is truthful; that remains for the jury. People v. Ortiz discusses the instruction’s limited role. For broader child-sex offense information, see the firm’s child-molestation defense page. The Law Offices of David S. Chesley handles California sex-offense defense. Call (800) 755-5174 to discuss the proposed testimony.