Brief Fact Summary. Steven Kinney (Defendant) was convicted, following a jury trial, of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and lewd and lascivious behavior. Defendant claims the sexual contact at issue and for which he was convicted was consensual, and appeals his conviction here.
Synopsis of Rule of Law. Expert testimony concerning rape trauma syndrome is admissible, “to assist the jury in evaluating the evidence, and . . . to respond to defense claims that the victim’s behavior after the alleged rape was inconsistent with the claim that the rape occurred.” Expert testimony concerning the rate of false rape reporting, however, when offered as an explanation of the typical behavior of rape victims and “tantamount to an expert opinion that the victim was telling the truth,” is inadmissible.
Did the trial court error in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Tyler concerning rape trauma syndrome at Defendant’s trial?
Did the trial court error in admitting the expert testimony of Dr. Tyler concerning the incidence of false reporting by rape victims?
No; the evidence was sufficiently reliable to assist the jury in determining the ultimate issue, and was therefore properly admitted.
Yes; the testimony related to the incidence of false reporting was prejudicial and, “invaded the proper role of the jury” and therefore should not have been admitted. However, no plain error occurred, as the court’s failure to exclude the evidence did not result in a “miscarriage of justice.”
Under the 2004 amendments, a definitive ruling on admissibility obviates the need for a renewed objection at trial.View Full Point of Law
As to the evidence related to the incidence of false rape reporting, the court followed past decisions that held similar testimony to be, “tantamount to an expert opinion that the victim was telling the truth . . . [which therefore] invaded the proper role of the jury.” The court concluded that here, “Dr. Tyler’s testimony on the rate of false reporting clearly went over the line as explained [in past decisions].” Reasoning that “the jury could infer from her testimony that scientific studies have shown that almost no woman falsely claims to have been raped and convict Defendant on that basis,” the court concluded that the evidence was, “inadmissible and prejudicial.” However, the court affirms the trial court’s decision because the, “failure to exclude the inadmissible expert testimony [did not cause] a miscarriage of justice,” so no plain error was present. Notably, the issue was not preserved for appeal, so the court’s review is only for plain error, which the court did not find.