## Facts

- J.Y. attended a high school football game, then a restaurant, and later returned to the school alone.
- Simmons approached J.Y. outside the school, held a knife to her, threatened her, and forced her to a railroad right-of-way.
- Simmons forced J.Y. to undress, placed his jacket on the ground, ordered her onto it, and raped her while holding the knife.
- After the rape, Simmons repeatedly told J.Y. he would have to kill her, claimed he had a gun, and walked her back to her car.
- Simmons drove to a gas station and forced J.Y. to purchase gasoline and obtain cash using her credit card.
- Simmons dropped J.Y. near her home, told her to repeat a fabricated story, and took her car.
- J.Y. reported the incident to her father and police, initially repeating the fabricated account but later describing the rape and robbery.
- The stolen car was recovered the next day in Georgia with Simmons driving it.
- At trial, the State presented, among other evidence, the victim’s clothing (with chain-of-custody testimony), expert testimony concerning rape-trauma syndrome to explain reporting behavior, testimony about the victim’s post-assault condition, and a challenged photographic exhibit.

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by allowing expert testimony related to the victim’s clothing despite alleged chain-of-custody deficiencies and limits on additional chain-of-custody evidence.
2. Whether the trial court erred by admitting expert testimony on rape-trauma syndrome to explain the victim’s inconsistent accounts.
3. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by denying motions in limine and to sever the charges.
4. Whether the trial court erred by denying motions to dismiss and discharge and by permitting amendment of the charging information.
5. Whether the trial court erred by denying a change of venue from the county and from the judge.
6. Whether testimony about the victim’s post-rape behavioral and emotional changes was improperly admitted.
7. Whether admission of a photographic exhibit lacked foundation or was unfairly prejudicial.
8. Whether the trial court abused its discretion in imposing consecutive sentences totaling 82 years, including consideration of the victim’s request for a maximum sentence.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Simmons’s convictions for rape, robbery, criminal confinement, and theft.
- The court held the chain of custody was sufficiently shown; minor gaps affected weight, not admissibility, and the expert testimony based on the clothing was properly admitted.
- The court upheld admission of rape-trauma syndrome evidence for the limited purpose of explaining behavior that might otherwise appear inconsistent to jurors.
- The court found no reversible error in denying severance and other pretrial motions, concluding the offenses were part of a continuous criminal episode and no clear prejudice was shown.
- The court upheld the denial of changes of venue, finding no adequate showing that an impartial jury could not be seated or that the judge was biased.
- The court held the victim’s post-assault behavioral and emotional evidence was relevant and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
- The court affirmed admission of the photograph as relevant, accurately depicting evidence, and within the trial court’s broad discretion.
- The court affirmed the consecutive 82-year sentence as supported by identified aggravating circumstances; victim input could be considered along with other proper factors.

## Legal Principles

- Physical evidence need not be excluded for speculative tampering; when an item is not readily susceptible to alteration, reasonable assurance of identity is sufficient and minor chain-of-custody gaps generally go to weight, not admissibility.
- Expert testimony on rape-trauma syndrome may be admissible to explain a complainant’s reporting patterns or post-assault behavior when offered to assist the jury in understanding conduct that might otherwise seem inconsistent; it may not be used as a direct opinion on truthfulness.
- Joinder and severance decisions are reviewed for abuse of discretion; related offenses forming a single continuous episode may be tried together absent a showing of clear prejudice.
- Motions to dismiss, discharge for delay, and amendments to charging informations are reviewed for prejudice to substantial rights; relief requires a concrete showing of harm.
- A change of venue requires a showing of actual prejudice or a substantial likelihood of prejudice; denial is reviewed for abuse of discretion.
- Evidence of a victim’s post-assault emotional state and behavioral changes can be relevant to the circumstances and consequences of the offense; admission is subject to probative value versus unfair prejudice balancing.
- Admission of photographs rests largely within the trial court’s discretion when the exhibit is relevant, accurately depicts what it purports to show, and is not unfairly prejudicial.
- Sentencing choices, including consecutive terms and consideration of victim statements, are reviewed for abuse of discretion; a sentence is sustained when supported by independent aggravating circumstances in the record.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court upheld the trial court’s evidentiary and procedural rulings and affirmed an 82-year consecutive sentence, concluding that the challenged expert testimony and other evidence were properly admitted and that the sentence was supported by valid aggravating factors and fell within the trial court’s discretion.


Simmons v. State, 504 N.E.2d 575 (Ind. 1987)