## Facts

- Ronald Kaye St. Pierre was federally indicted and tried for two counts of carnal abuse of his 12-year-old stepdaughter in Indian country under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1153 and 2032.
- The victim testified in detail about two charged incidents occurring in July 1985 within a longer period of alleged abuse.
- The abuse was disclosed after the family left the home following a domestic assault; a physical examination corroborated the victim’s account.
- The defense sought to introduce testimony that pornographic magazines were found in the child’s environment to suggest an alternative source of sexual knowledge; none of the magazines was produced at trial, and part of the proffer relied on the younger sister’s out-of-court statement.
- The government arranged a psychological evaluation of the victim by a clinical psychologist; the defense received the report and did not renew any motion for additional expert assistance.
- At trial, the psychologist testified about recognized emotional and psychological characteristics of sexually abused children and compared those traits with the victim’s observed behavior, without offering an opinion on whether the victim was truthful.
- A jury convicted St. Pierre on both counts, and he received concurrent eleven-year sentences.

## Issues

1. Whether the district court abused its discretion by excluding defense evidence that the child had access to pornography, under Federal Rules of Evidence 403 and 412 and the hearsay rule.
2. Whether the district court denied due process or fundamental fairness by not appointing additional expert witnesses for the defense, including another psychologist and an expert to assess an asserted sexual-offender “profile.”
3. Whether the district court erred under Federal Rule of Evidence 702 by admitting expert testimony on characteristics of sexually abused children and comparing those characteristics to the victim’s behavior.

## Decision

- The judgment of conviction was affirmed.
- The exclusion of the pornography-related evidence was upheld as within the trial court’s discretion under Rule 403; the sister’s statement was properly excluded as hearsay, and the court did not need to decide the Rule 412 question.
- The claim that additional defense experts should have been appointed was rejected because the defense did not renew or press the request after receiving the evaluation report, constituting waiver; the trial judge had no duty to arrange additional experts on the court’s own initiative.
- The psychologist’s testimony on general characteristics of sexually abused children and comparison to the victim’s behavior was admissible under Rule 702 so long as the expert did not opine that the victim was telling the truth.

## Legal Principles

- Evidentiary rulings, including Rule 403 balancing, are reviewed for clear and prejudicial abuse of discretion; substantial deference is given to the trial court’s assessment of unfair prejudice versus probative value.
- Out-of-court statements offered for their truth are inadmissible absent an applicable hearsay exception.
- A defendant may waive claims for additional expert assistance by failing to renew or pursue the motion after receiving the ordered or provided evaluation; courts are not required to appoint additional experts sua sponte.
- Under Rule 702, expert testimony describing scientifically recognized characteristics of sexually abused children may be admitted to assist the jury in evaluating evidence outside ordinary experience, but the expert may not directly vouch for the complainant’s truthfulness.

## Conclusion

The Eighth Circuit upheld St. Pierre’s convictions, concluding that the trial court permissibly excluded pornography-related alternative-source evidence, treated the request for more defense experts as waived and not constitutionally required, and properly admitted expert testimony on child sexual-abuse characteristics limited to non-vouching comparisons.


United States v. St. Pierre, 812 F.2d 417 (8th Cir. 1987)