Summary
The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed Orville Carter's convictions and sixty-year sentence for child molesting and being an habitual offender. The court held that the autistic child's testimony, despite inconsistencies and lack of corroboration, was sufficient evidence to support the conviction. It also rejected claims of fundamental error, including alleged expert vouching, admission of the child's videotaped and hearsay statements, competency, use of an alias, and limitations on cross-examination.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence, consisting principally of M.C.'s testimony and repeated statements, was sufficient to sustain Carter's child-molesting conviction despite inconsistencies and her failure to identify Carter in court.
- Whether the trial court committed fundamental error by permitting an autism expert to testify about autistic children's capacity to deliberately deceive.
- Whether other unpreserved claims concerning coaching, hearsay, an alias in the charging information, witness competency, and limits on cross-examination warranted reversal as fundamental error.
- Whether the alleged uncertainty concerning the date of the molestation rendered the evidence insufficient because the charged time period was not proved.
Holdings
- A child molestation conviction may be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of the child victim, and the evidence here was sufficient because a reasonable jury could credit M.C.'s four substantially consistent accusations despite equivocation, inconsistencies, and her failure to identify Carter in court.
- The autism expert's testimony did not cross the line into impermissible vouching under Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b) because, viewed in context, it provided specialized information and left the jury to decide whether M.C.'s account was truthful and accurate.
- The defendant's unpreserved claims concerning the videotaped statement, hearsay testimony, the alias, witness competency, and limits on cross-examination did not constitute fundamental error warranting reversal.
- The State was not required to prove the exact date alleged because time is not of the essence of the crime of child molesting, absent circumstances making a specific date material.
Key quotations
“A molested child's uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.” (754 N.E.2d at 880)
“Although her statements that autistic children find it difficult to deliberately deceive others may have been persuasive, the jury still had to draw its own inference as to whether M.C.'s story was an accurate account.” (754 N.E.2d at 883)
“At the end of the day, we cannot conclude that these defects amounted to a substantial, blatant violation of due process, the test for ordering reversal.” (754 N.E.2d at 884)
Factual background
M.C., Carter's autistic eight-year-old daughter, told her mother that Carter sexually abused her and repeated the account in a videotaped interview, to a police officer, and at trial. M.C. could not reliably identify Carter in the courtroom and gave some inconsistent or confused statements, while her mother testified that M.C. was imaginative and sometimes treated imagined events as real. An autism specialist testified about autistic children's difficulty deliberately deceiving others and their tendency to associate unrelated occurrences. The jury convicted Carter of child molesting, and Carter pleaded guilty to being an habitual offender.
Procedural history
The State charged Carter with child molesting and habitual offender status. A jury found him guilty of child molesting, and Carter pleaded guilty to being an habitual offender. The trial court entered judgment and imposed a sixty-year sentence. The Supreme Court of Indiana affirmed.