are “consistent with” sexual abuse trauma. As the majority acknowledges, “there is a very thin line” between expert testimony that assists the jury and that which imper-missibly vouches for the child-witness’s credibility. Our court has not previously decided whether the line is crossed by an expert who opines the victim’s behavior or statements are “consistent with” child abuse trauma. I think it is worth considering the guidance provided by our sister state supreme courts to help decide this close and important question. The stakes are high when the retrial forces the victim to relive the trauma of the abuse. I also write separately to emphasize the majority opinion should not be read to foreclose the possible use of such expert testimony in rebuttal if the defendan 4, 707 (1993) (<HOLDING>); State v. Michaels, 264 N.J.Super. 579, 625
holding harmless the improper admission of a social workers hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse where the credibility of the childs testimony was supported by other witnesses holding that the improper admission of hearsay testimony concerning a childs report of sexual abuse warranted reversal where the childs otherwise uncorroborated testimony was the sole basis for conviction and the hearsay augmented the childs testimony with additional detail in certain areas 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 testimony that a childs symptoms were consistent with csaas could not be offered to prove the child was abused holding that an experts testimony that a victims symptoms were consistent with administration of a date rape drug were admissible