with respect to the edification of the jury as to behaviors that might affect the complainant’s credibility.” Favoccia, 306 Conn. 770, 51 A.3d at 1024. As the foregoing cases demonstrate, expert testimony may be admissible in rebuttal if the defendant opens the door by challenging the credibility of the child victim based on behavior or symptoms the expert can show is consistent with child abuse trauma. But, in this case, the expert crossed the line by providing such an opinion in the State’s case in chief. ZAGER, J., joins this special concurrenc olding that the trial judge did not abuse his discretion by admitting expert testimony on rebuttal which connected generalized sexual abuse symptoms to the individual victim); State v. Stowers, 81 Ohio St.3d 260, 690 N.E.2d 881, 883 (1998) (<HOLDING>). 3 . These safeguards can take the form of
holding that evidence of defendants threatening behavior toward a witness was admissible holding that the testimony of an expert witness is admissible when the witness outlines the general characteristics of sexually abused children and then states that the victims symptoms are consistent with those characteristics holding that an expert witnesss testimony that the behavior of an alleged child victim of sexual abuse is consistent with behavior observed in sexually abused children is admissible under the ohio rules of evidence holding evidence of past uncharged sexual encounters admissible in child sexual abuse case to show relationship between defendant and alleged victim holding that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing expert testimony that directly linked the characteristics of sexually abused children to the complainants in this case