Henson v. State
1989 WL 29303, 535 N.E.2d 1189, 1989 Ind. LEXIS 87 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert psychological testimony regarding an alleged victim's post-incident behavior is admissible when offered by the defense to show inconsistency with a traumatic event, so long as a proper foundation is laid. It is fundamentally unfair and constitutes reversible error for a trial court to permit the State to use such evidence to support its case while denying its use by a defendant seeking to challenge the State's case.
Facts:
- Rickey J. Henson and the victim, J.O., were at the same crowded bar in Kokomo, where Henson joined J.O. at her table.
- During the evening, J.O. danced with other men but not with Henson.
- After the bar closed, as J.O. was getting into her car, Henson approached her with a knife, forced her into the passenger seat, and drove away.
- Henson drove to a secluded location where he forced J.O. to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sex.
- During the assault, Henson attempted to cut J.O.'s blouse with the knife, causing superficial lacerations.
- The evening after the alleged assault, J.O. returned to the same bar where she drank and socialized for two hours.
Procedural Posture:
- Rickey J. Henson was prosecuted by the State in Howard Circuit Court, a trial court.
- During the jury trial, the defense attempted to introduce testimony from an expert psychologist, Dr. David Gover.
- The prosecution objected to the expert's testimony, and the trial court sustained the objection, excluding the evidence.
- The jury convicted Henson of Rape, Criminal Deviate Conduct, Criminal Confinement, and Battery.
- The trial court imposed sentence on Henson.
- Henson, as appellant, appealed his conviction to the Indiana Supreme Court, arguing the trial court erred by excluding his expert witness.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a trial court abuse its discretion by excluding expert psychological testimony offered by the defense that an alleged rape victim's post-incident behavior is inconsistent with that of a person who has suffered a traumatic rape?
Opinions:
Majority - DeBRULER, Justice.
Yes. A trial court abuses its discretion and commits reversible error by excluding such testimony. The expert testimony was relevant because it would have tended to make it less probable that a rape occurred, a central issue at trial. The defense laid a proper foundation by establishing the expert's qualifications and by basing the hypothetical question on facts already in evidence—namely, J.O.'s return to the bar. The court rejected the State's argument that the testimony was an improper opinion on the victim's credibility, clarifying that testifying about behavior inconsistent with a clinical pattern is not the same as directly stating a witness is lying. Citing its precedent in Simmons v. State, which allowed the prosecution to use expert testimony on "rape trauma syndrome" to explain a victim's behavior, the court held it would be 'fundamentally unfair' to deny a defendant the reciprocal right to use similar evidence to challenge the occurrence of the rape. Excluding the testimony impinged upon the defendant's substantial right to present a defense.
Analysis:
This case establishes a principle of evidentiary symmetry regarding the use of expert psychological testimony on rape trauma syndrome. By building on its prior decision in Simmons, the court ensures that such evidence is not a 'one-way street' available only to the prosecution. The holding solidifies the defendant's right to present a complete defense by using expert testimony to challenge the complainant's narrative by highlighting behavior inconsistent with the alleged trauma. This precedent requires trial courts to admit such defense evidence when a proper foundation is laid, shifting the focus from admissibility to the weight the jury should assign the testimony after cross-examination.
Unlock the full brief for Henson v. State