prior to admission, expert testimony must be tested and shown to be beneficial to the trier of fact with a minimum of prejudice to the defendant.” (People v. Server (1986), 148 Ill. App. 3d 888, 898.) The party who offers a witness as an expert bears the burden of establishing his or her qualifications (People v. Park (1978), 72 Ill. 2d 203) and "[t]he degree and manner of knowledge and experience required of an expert is directly related to the complexity of the subject matter and the corresponding likelihood of error by one insufficiently familiar therewith” (Server, 148 Ill. App. 3d at 899, citing Park, 72 Ill. 2d at 209-10). I do not believe that the State established a proper foundation for its expert’s opinion. (Cf. People v. Pollard (1992), 225 Ill. App. 3d 970, 976-77 (<HOLDING>).) In the instant case, defense counsel did not
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 holding that proper foundation existed for qualified experts testimony regarding child sexual abuse accommodation syndrome where expert had extensive training and experience with sexually abused children expert testified regarding the characteristics of the syndrome and its recognition by specific agencies and defense counsel rigorously crossexamined witness concerning the basis of her knowledge of the victims conduct holding that expert was qualified to testify regarding sexuallyabused children based on witness education professional license and experience 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 admission of expert testimony not erroneous where expert described typical traits and characteristics of sexually abused children