## Facts

- Bobby Joe Steward, a 52-year-old police officer and family friend, was charged with multiple counts of child molesting involving two sisters.
- As to S.M. (age 15), the State alleged Steward engaged in sexual intercourse; he was charged with Class C felony child molesting.
- As to A.M. (age 13), the State alleged Steward touched/fondled her with intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires; he was charged with Class D felony child molesting.
- The State presented expert testimony describing “child sexual abuse syndrome/profile/pattern” and compared S.M.’s behaviors to the described characteristics to suggest her behavior was consistent with sexual abuse.
- The jury convicted Steward on the S.M. Class C count and the A.M. Class D count, and acquitted him on three additional counts involving S.M.

## Issues

1. Whether expert testimony describing “child sexual abuse syndrome, profile, or pattern” is sufficiently reliable under Indiana Evidence Rule 702 to be admitted as substantive proof that child sexual abuse occurred.

## Decision

- Transfer was granted to decide only the Rule 702 reliability/admissibility question regarding syndrome/profile evidence; other appellate rulings were summarily affirmed.
- The court held that child sexual abuse syndrome/profile/pattern testimony is not sufficiently reliable to be admitted as direct, substantive evidence that a particular child was abused.
- The court indicated that more limited expert testimony may be admissible for non-diagnostic purposes if properly confined and not used to prove abuse occurred.
- The evidentiary ruling was to govern the retrial on the S.M. charge; the A.M. conviction remained affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- Under Indiana Evidence Rule 702, expert testimony offered as scientific/technical evidence must be sufficiently reliable to assist the trier of fact on the point for which it is offered.
- “Syndrome/profile/pattern” evidence may not be used to prove that abuse occurred by reasoning that a complainant’s behaviors match an asserted profile of abused children.
- Expert testimony may not function as a substitute for credibility opinions; experts may not opine that another witness is or is not telling the truth, and courts must police indirect credibility bolstering (including through profile labels).
- General testimony about dynamics sometimes associated with child sexual abuse (e.g., delayed reporting or recantation) may be admissible for limited explanatory purposes if it avoids diagnosing abuse in the particular case and does not tell the jury whom to believe.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court ruled that child sexual abuse syndrome/profile evidence lacks the reliability required by Rule 702 when offered to show that molestation occurred in a specific case, permitting only properly limited expert testimony that does not diagnose abuse or amount to credibility vouching.


Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995)