Questioning of Expert Witness About Religion Found To Be Harmless Error

In re State of New York v. Andrew O., (App. Div., Dec. 3, 2009), is an appeal of a trial court's finding that respondent is a dangerous sex offender who needs to be confined to a secure treatment facility. One objection raised by respondent was that the psychologist who testified for him was improperly questioned about religion. On cross-examination, counsel questioned the psychologist about Yoism, a religion that he founded. All five judges on the New York appellate court concluded that interjection of a party's religious beliefs or observances has no place in either a criminal or civil trial . However 4 of the 5 held that the objectionable questioning did not substantially influence the jury's verdict. Judge Rose dissenting argued that because of the importance of the psychologist's testimony in the case, the order should be reversed and the case sent back for a new trial. Yesterday's Albany Times-Union reported on the decision with additional details.