Reversing Shaken Baby Syndrome by Health Central

With respect to appellant's contention that the court of appeals erred by declining to consider this particular complainant's history in conducting its reliability analysis, we conclude that the court of appeals's analysis reflects that it did consider whether the experts' opinions were reliable in light of this complainant's particular injuries. Second, appellant contends that the court of appeals incorrectly determined that her appellate challenge to the reliability of the experts' testimony on abusive head trauma did not fairly include the issue of whether the expert testimony was unreliable “given this specific injured party's history.” 1 With respect to appellant's contention challenging the reliability of the experts' testimony of abusive head trauma based solely on a constellation of symptoms, we agree with the court of appeals's assessment that the experts' testimony was sufficiently reliable so as to warrant a conclusion that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting that evidence, and we thus overrule appellant's complaint as to this matter.

First, appellant contends that the court of appeals erred by concluding that the experts' testimony on abusive head trauma “based solely on a constellation of symptoms” was sufficiently reliable so as to render it admissible under the rules of evidence. On discretionary review, appellant challenges the court of appeals's ruling upholding the admissibility of this evidence on two bases. Appellant objected to the State's experts' testimony on the basis that it was unreliable, but the trial court overruled her objection.

The primary evidence presented at appellant's trial was the testimony of the State's three expert witnesses, each of whom opined that the complainant's injuries were indicative of intentionally inflicted impact, also known as abusive head trauma, rather than accidental injury or a preexisting medical condition as appellant had suggested. Jennifer Banner Wolfe, appellant, presents this issue in her petition for discretionary review following her conviction in a bench trial for first-degree-felony injury to a child after an infant under her care sustained serious internal head injuries. In this opinion, we address whether expert testimony on the subject of abusive head trauma is reliable.

Reversing Shaken Baby Syndrome by Health Central