## Facts

- A jury in Howard Circuit Court convicted Rickey J. Henson of rape, criminal deviate conduct, criminal confinement, and battery.
- J.O. was at a crowded bar in Kokomo, Indiana. Henson sat next to her after asking if he could join her; she agreed, and they exchanged names but otherwise did not talk.
- During the evening, J.O. danced with two other men but not with Henson.
- After the bar closed, J.O. went to her car. Before she could shut the door, Henson approached with a knife, forced her into the passenger seat, and drove them to a secluded location.
- J.O. testified that Henson forced her to engage in sexual intercourse and oral sex, and that he attempted to cut off her blouse with the knife, causing superficial lacerations.
- J.O. testified that she returned to the same bar the next evening and drank; a defense witness also testified that she danced.
- The defense called Dr. David Gover, a psychologist specializing in post-traumatic stress syndrome who had worked with rape victims.
- Defense counsel asked Dr. Gover whether returning to the bar the next day to socialize, drink, and dance was consistent with the behavior of a person who had suffered a traumatic, forcible rape.
- The State objected because Dr. Gover had not consulted with or examined J.O. After argument outside the jury’s presence, the trial court found Dr. Gover qualified but excluded the opinion as “too speculative.”
- Henson appealed, challenging (1) the sufficiency of the evidence and (2) the exclusion of Dr. Gover’s opinion testimony.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for rape and related offenses.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by excluding the defense psychologist’s opinion testimony about whether the complainant’s next-day bar attendance (drinking and dancing) was consistent with the behavior of a rape victim, where the psychologist had not examined the complainant.

## Decision

- The court held the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions under the standard of review requiring consideration of the evidence most favorable to the verdict and reasonable inferences supporting it.
- The court held the trial court erred by excluding Dr. Gover’s testimony solely because he had not examined the complainant.
- The court concluded the exclusion was reversible error because the proffered opinion, framed around facts presented at trial, could assist the jury in evaluating the significance of the complainant’s post-incident conduct in a case that turned largely on witness credibility.
- The convictions were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial.

## Legal Principles

- On sufficiency review, an appellate court considers the evidence most favorable to the verdict and does not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility.
- The testimony of a complaining witness can support a conviction for sexual offenses if the jury finds the witness credible; unusual conduct after the event does not automatically defeat the verdict as a matter of law.
- Opinion testimony from a qualified witness may be admitted when it would assist the trier of fact on matters beyond common knowledge.
- A qualified witness may give an opinion in response to a properly framed hypothetical question based on facts in evidence; personal examination of the complainant is not a prerequisite to admissibility when the opinion is tied to those trial facts.
- Concerns that an opinion is weak or uncertain generally affect weight, not admissibility, and may be tested through cross-examination.
- Excluding defense evidence that bears directly on a central theory of the case and the jury’s evaluation of credibility can require reversal when the error is not harmless.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court found the trial evidence sufficient to support Henson’s convictions but reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial court improperly barred a qualified psychologist from offering opinion testimony—based on the facts in evidence—about whether the complainant’s next-day return to the bar to drink and dance was consistent with rape-victim behavior, a point central to the defense attack on credibility.


Henson v. State, 535 N.E.2d 1189 (1989)