State v. J.R. (A-50-15; 076694)
Although Dr. Taska’s testimony was in part proper CSAAS opinion evidence, it exceeded the parameters imposed on CSAAS testimony. In that respect, the admission of her testimony constituted error. However, the trial court’s error with respect to Dr. Taska was not clearly capable of producing an unjust result, and does not warrant a new trial. Accordingly, the Court reverses the judgment
of the Appellate Division panel, and remands to the Appellate Division for consideration of the issues raised by defendant that the panel did not reach.