State v. Kinney
171 Vt. 239, 762 A.2d 833 (2000) (2000)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome and the typical behaviors of adult rape victims is generally admissible to help a jury understand evidence and evaluate victim conduct that may seem counterintuitive. However, expert testimony regarding the statistical frequency of false rape reports is inadmissible as it improperly bolsters the victim's credibility by invading the jury's role as the sole arbiter of truth.
Facts:
- On the night of October 9, 1998, Steven Kinney consumed at least twelve beers, three grams of cocaine, and two 'bowls' of marijuana with friends.
- After 1:00 a.m., Kinney went to Lucas Sweetser's home, entered, and emerged carrying the victim over his shoulder.
- Kinney placed the victim in the back seat of a car; the victim testified she was taken against her will and repeatedly asked to be let out, while Kinney claimed she went willingly.
- The group drove to another house where everyone, including the victim, drank more beer and smoked marijuana.
- The victim testified that Kinney pulled her into this second house by her arm, while Kinney and a friend claimed she entered of her own volition.
- Later, Kinney took the victim to his parents' house, where they had sexual intercourse.
- The victim testified that Kinney raped her in his room, while Kinney maintained that the sexual encounter was consensual.
- The following morning, Kinney arranged for a friend to drive the victim home.
Procedural Posture:
- The State of Vermont prosecuted Steven Kinney in a state trial court.
- Prior to trial, the defense challenged the admissibility of the State's expert witness on rape trauma syndrome, but the court rejected the challenge.
- During the trial, defense counsel failed to make a timely objection to the expert's testimony regarding false reporting statistics.
- The trial court denied a defense request for a jury instruction on diminished capacity due to intoxication, ruling the request was untimely.
- A jury found Kinney guilty of kidnapping, aggravated sexual assault, and lewd and lascivious behavior.
- The trial court sentenced Kinney to two concurrent terms of forty-years-to-life imprisonment.
- Kinney (appellant) appealed his conviction and sentence to the Supreme Court of Vermont, with the State (appellee) opposing the appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is expert testimony regarding rape trauma syndrome, including common victim behaviors and statistics on the rate of false reporting, admissible to assist the jury in evaluating evidence?
Opinions:
Majority - Dooley, J.
No, as to the false reporting statistics, but Yes, as to the general syndrome testimony. Expert testimony explaining the general characteristics and common behaviors associated with rape trauma syndrome is admissible to help the jury understand a victim's seemingly counterintuitive behavior, but testimony presenting statistics on the rate of false rape reports is inadmissible because it improperly vouches for the victim's credibility. The court reasoned that, similar to its precedents in child sexual abuse cases, expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome can assist the jury in understanding superficially bizarre behavior by a victim, such as delaying a report or not physically resisting. This type of evidence is deemed reliable and relevant under V.R.E. 702 and the Daubert standard, as it helps dispel common misconceptions. The court held that trial courts can rely on the persuasive analysis of other appellate courts to establish the general admissibility of such evidence without holding a full evidentiary hearing in every case. However, the court found that the expert's testimony that only about 2% of rape reports are false crossed the line into impermissible 'truth detector' testimony. This evidence invades the province of the jury by suggesting that, statistically, the complaining witness is telling the truth. The court cited State v. Catsam for the principle that an expert cannot opine that victims of a certain crime do not lie. Despite finding this specific testimony inadmissible, the court concluded that the defendant failed to make a timely objection, and its admission did not constitute plain error because the expert had never met the victim and her testimony was purely theoretical.
Analysis:
This decision formally extends the admissibility of psychological syndrome evidence, previously established in child abuse cases, to cases involving adult rape victims in Vermont. It provides crucial guidance on how trial courts should perform their 'gatekeeper' function under Daubert for 'soft science,' allowing them to rely on the body of case law from other jurisdictions rather than conducting expensive foundational hearings for well-established theories. The ruling creates a clear precedential boundary: experts may explain 'why' a victim might behave in a certain way, but they may not use statistics or other means to implicitly or explicitly tell the jury 'that' a specific victim is credible. This reinforces the jury's exclusive role as the ultimate fact-finder and assessor of witness credibility.
Unlock the full brief for State v. Kinney