## Facts

- Two criminal prosecutions were considered together to address the admissibility limits of expert testimony on rape trauma syndrome (RTS).
- In *Taylor*, a 19-year-old woman reported being raped and sodomized at gunpoint on a beach after being lured by phone calls to meet a “friend” and letting an unknown man into her car.
- The complainant initially did not identify the assailant, but later named John Taylor, whom she had known for years.
- At Taylor’s second trial, the prosecution called a psychologist to testify about RTS to explain the complainant’s delayed identification and other post-incident behavior; Taylor was convicted.
- In *Banks*, an 11-year-old girl accused Ronnie V. Banks of sexual assault.
- At Banks’s trial, RTS testimony was admitted in part to show the child’s behavior was consistent with forcible rape; Banks was acquitted of forcible-compulsion counts but convicted of statutory sex offenses.
- In both cases, the trial courts admitted RTS testimony and the Appellate Division affirmed; the New York Court of Appeals granted further review.

## Issues

1. Whether expert testimony that a complainant’s behavior is consistent with RTS is admissible in a criminal sexual-assault trial.
2. For what limited purposes RTS testimony may be admitted without invading the jury’s role or becoming proof that rape occurred.
3. Whether RTS testimony was properly admitted in *Taylor* and improperly admitted in *Banks* given the charges and the way the evidence was used.

## Decision

- The Court held RTS evidence is not categorically inadmissible; it may be relevant and admissible under specified limits.
- The Court affirmed Taylor’s conviction because the RTS testimony was admitted to help the jury understand delayed identification and other behavior the defense used to attack credibility.
- The Court reversed in Banks because the RTS testimony was used in a manner that risked implying forcible rape occurred, despite the convictions being on non-forcible statutory offenses.
- The Court cautioned that RTS evidence presents a substantial risk that jurors will treat syndrome evidence as diagnostic proof that a rape occurred and, by extension, that the defendant is guilty.

## Legal Principles

- Expert testimony is admissible when it assists the jury on matters beyond ordinary experience and satisfies standard relevance constraints.
- RTS testimony may be admitted to explain post-assault conduct that might otherwise appear inconsistent with a claim of sexual assault (e.g., delayed reporting or delayed identification).
- RTS testimony may not be used as substantive proof that a rape occurred, may not directly or indirectly vouch for the complainant’s truthfulness, and may not express an opinion on the defendant’s guilt.
- Trial courts must enforce strict limits and weigh probative value against the danger of unfair prejudice, including the risk that RTS functions as improper profile evidence.

## Conclusion

The New York Court of Appeals permitted RTS expert testimony only for a constrained explanatory purpose—helping jurors assess seemingly counterintuitive victim behavior—affirming *Taylor* where it addressed delayed identification, but reversing *Banks* where it was used in a way that suggested the occurrence of forcible rape and threatened the jury’s fact-finding function.


People v. Taylor, 75 N.Y.2d 277, 552 N.Y.S.2d 883, 552 N.E.2d 131 (N.Y. 1990)