State v. Spigarolo
Connecticut Supreme Court
556 A.2d 112 (1989)
- Written by Angela Patrick, JD
Facts
William Spigarolo (defendant) was charged with sexually abusing two children. At trial, Spigarolo’s attorney attempted to impeach the children’s credibility by pointing out that each child had provided seemingly inconsistent statements about the alleged abuse. In response to these impeachment efforts, the trial court allowed an expert witness, Brenda Woods, to testify that it was common for children who had been sexually abused to give seemingly inconsistent or incomplete statements about the abuse because of the trauma they had experienced. Woods never provided a specific opinion about the credibility of either child victim. Spigarolo was convicted and appealed. On appeal, Spigarolo argued that the expert testimony from Woods was improper because it usurped the jury’s role of determining whether the children were credible.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Glass, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 810,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
