may not be cited except as provided by
Minn. Stat. § 480A.08, subd. 3 (1996)
STATE OF MINNESOTA
IN COURT OF APPEALS
State of Minnesota,
Spencer Allen Tilmon,
Filed January 13, 1998
Affirmed in part, Reversed in part, and Remanded
Ramsey County District Court
File No. K4961758
Hubert H. Humphrey III, Attorney General, 1400 NCL Tower, 445 Minnesota Street, St. Paul, MN 55101; and
Susan Gaertner, Ramsey County Attorney, Mark Nathan Lystig, Assistant County Attorney, 50 Kellogg Blvd. West, Suite 315, St. Paul, MN 55102 (for respondent)
Ira W. Whitlock, Whitlock Law Office, 906 Minnesota Building, 46 E. 4th Street, St. Paul, MN 55101 (for appellant)
Considered and decided by Short, Presiding Judge, Kalitowski, Judge, and Peterson, Judge.
Appellant Spencer Tilmon was convicted of two counts of first-degree criminal sexual conduct, and lesser offenses. On appeal he contends: (1) the district court abused its discretion in admitting expert testimony; and (2) the evidence is insufficient to support the convictions. We affirm the convictions but reverse and remand for resentencing because the district court improperly entered judgment on multiple convictions.
As a general rule, an expert may not testify regarding the truth or falsity of a witness's allegations about a crime. State v. Myers, 359 N.W.2d 604, 611 (Minn. 1984). Even a lay witness may not give such "vouching testimony." Van Buren, 556 N.W.2d at 551. The nurse, however, testified only that the interviews and physical examinations were "consistent with" sexual abuse. This type of testimony is frequently allowed based on the expert witness's opportunity to interview the victim and do a physical examination. See, e.g., State v. Goldenstein, 505 N.W.2d 332, 338 (Minn. App. 1993) (noting expert testimony in terms of "consistent with" sexual abuse), review denied (Minn. Oct. 19, 1993). Tilmon cites no authority holding that this frequently-used formulation of expert opinion is improper "vouching" testimony, and we have found none. Further, we note that much of the nurse's testimony was directed toward the negative physical examinations, which had no relationship to the credibility of K.S. and T.S. Moreover, the prosecutor did not argue that the nurse had concluded the girls were credible.
We conclude the district court did not clearly abuse its discretion in admitting the nurse's testimony. See State v. Steinbuch, 514 N.W.2d 793, 801 (Minn. 1994) (evidentiary rulings are sustained absent clear abuse of discretion).
Tilmon's argument is directed at the credibility of K.S. and T.S. On appeal, however, this court does not weigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the witnesses. Inconsistencies in the testimony generally "go to the credibility of the witnesses, which is for the jury to determine." State v. Okegbenro, 409 N.W.2d 1, 4 (Minn. App. 1987). We conclude the evidence is sufficient under this standard of review to sustain the convictions.
Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.