State v. Hall

• Decision Date: 31 January 1992
• Docket Number: No. 201PA90,201PA90
• Citation: 412 S.E.2d 883,330 N.C. 808
• Court: North Carolina Supreme Court
• Parties: STATE of North Carolina v. Donnie Ray HALL.

Page 883

412 S.E.2d 883

330 N.C. 808

STATE of North Carolina v. Donnie Ray HALL.

No. 201PA90.

Supreme Court of North Carolina.

Jan. 31, 1992.

Lacy H. Thornburg, Atty. Gen. by Ellen B. Scouten and John F. Maddrey, Asst. Attys. Gen., Raleigh, for State.

Malcolm Ray Hunter, Jr., Appellate Defender by Mark D. Montgomery, Asst. Appellate Defender, Raleigh, for defendant-appellant.

EXUM, Chief Justice.

This appeal arises from defendant's convictions for second-degree rape in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-27.3 and sexual activity by a substitute parent in violation of N.C.G.S. § 14-27.7. The trial court admitted evidence that the prosecuting witness suffered a conversion reaction and post-traumatic stress disorder following an alleged rape by her stepfather. We conclude that the admission of evidence on these two psychological phenomena constitutes error where offered for the substantive purpose of proving that the rape did in fact occur. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand for a new trial.

I.

The events at issue took place on 13 February 1988. At about 2 a.m., defendant Donnie Ray Hall and the prosecuting witness [whom we shall refer to as M.M. because of her young age], defendant's fifteen-year-old stepdaughter, returned to their home after visiting a family friend. The rest of the family, including defendant's wife (and M.M.'s mother), were already asleep. M.M. testified that, after making defendant a sandwich, she proceeded to her bedroom which she shared with her eight-year-old stepsister. After M.M. was in the bedroom and dressed for bed, defendant came into the room supposedly to check on a wood stove.

M.M. testified that defendant started kissing her, although she told defendant to stop. Defendant fondled M.M.'s breasts and between her legs, eventually penetrating her vagina with his penis. He told her not to tell anyone, and threatened to harm her family members if she did. She did not scream or call for help, although her sister was in the bedroom with her, and her mother was in the next room. M.M. claimed she was too frightened. Within a few days, M.M. told a friend, her mother, and the authorities about these events.

Several weeks later, M.M. suffered some degree of paralysis, which could not be attributed to any physiological causes. Her doctors decided that M.M.'s condition was due to psychosomatic causes. She was hospitalized for several months beginning on 27 March 1988. Several weeks after her discharge, she was readmitted after attempting suicide.

M.M. also testified about several instances in 1985 when defendant had inserted his fingers between her legs. These events resulted in defendant pleading guilty to taking indecent liberties with a minor. He was subsequently incarcerated.

Several health care professionals testified about symptoms M.M. displayed after the alleged rape. The crux of this collective testimony, which is discussed in more detail below, was: that M.M. fit the "profile" of sexually abused children; that she suffered a neurologically inexplicable paralysis known as "conversion reaction," which is caused by severe psychological trauma, anxiety or depression; and that she was suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, which involves psychological responses to certain emotionally traumatic events.

At the close of the State's evidence, the trial court denied defendant's motion to dismiss. Defendant then proceeded to put on evidence of his own.

Patricia Hall, who is defendant's wife and M.M.'s mother, testified on her husband's behalf. She stated that, although her bedroom was next to M.M.'s, she heard no sounds from it on the night in question. Deborah Graybill, a family friend, testified that, during the time defendant was incarcerated for his 1985 indecent liberties conviction, M.M. told Graybill that she would send defendant back to prison one way or another. Carleen Boulden, a neighbor, testified that M.M. telephoned a social worker from the Boulden home in 1987. M.M. told the social worker that defendant hit her. After this conversation, M.M. told Boulden that she would do anything to put defendant back in prison, and that she didn't care what it took. Furthermore, a doctor who examined M.M. a few days after the alleged assault testified that his examination revealed no evidence of physical trauma. M.M. did, however, complain to him that she had some tenderness in the back part of her vagina.

Taking the stand in his own defense, defendant admitted pleading guilty in 1985 to taking indecent liberties with M.M.. He stated further that he was in fact guilty of this earlier crime. However, defendant denied ever having sex with M.M. or doing anything with her, or to her, on the night in question. He denied both entering the room and touching her.

The trial court submitted verdict sheets to the jury, which found defendant guilty of second-degree rape and of sexual activity by a substitute parent. The trial court sentenced defendant to thirty years' imprisonment for rape and to a consecutive six-year term for the sexual activity charge.

Defendant appealed to the North Carolina Court of Appeals, which unanimously affirmed the trial court's decision. Subsequently, we allowed defendant's petition for discretionary review. We now reverse the Court of Appeals and order a new trial.

II.

We consider the admissibility of expert testimony that M.M. suffered a conversion reaction and post-traumatic stress disorder after the alleged rape. We conclude that this evidence, although admissible for corroborative purposes, was not admissible to show that a rape had in fact occurred. We therefore reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

A.

The testimony at issue today was offered by the State and came from three sources Judy Stadler, a clinical social worker with a Bachelor of Arts degree in psychology and a Masters in counseling; Dr. Sarah Sinal, a pediatrician at Baptist Hospital and the Bowman-Gray School of Medicine; and Dr. Roy Haberkern, a child psychiatrist and the head of Child Psychiatry at Baptist Hospital and the Bowman-Gray School of Medicine. The State presented no physical evidence nor any other medical evidence that a rape had in fact occurred. It relied heavily on the testimony of the prosecuting witness and the three experts to make its case against defendant.

Stadler, who was not tendered by the State as an expert witness, testified that she had counseled M.M. on separate occasions in 1985 and 1988. On both occasions, M.M. had been referred to Stadler due to allegations by the child of sexual abuse. Stadler testified that in both 1985 and 1988 M.M. fit a profile of characteristics of children who had been sexually abused. The following exchange between Stadler and the prosecuting attorney took place:

Q. ... Now, on the first visit that you saw her [M.M.] back in 1985 would you state whether or not [M.M.] exhibited any characteristics of a child that had been sexually abused.

MR. WHITE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

Q. You may answer.

A. There are profile, there is a profile of characteristics that you can look at that has been stated that where other children who have been abused appear. And yes, [M.M.] did fit that profile.

Q. Now, on the second time that you saw her in March of 1988, would you state whether or not [M.M.] exhibited any of those characteristics of a sexually abused child.

MR. WHITE: Objection.

THE COURT: Overruled.

A. Again, she did fit this profile. And at that point of time she was quite a great deal more serious in those characteristics.

On cross-examination, Stadler further testified in explaining an answer that

[M.M.] fit the profile of a sexually abused child. And one of the characteristics of that is that a sexually abused victim feels very helpless, powerless. And often they're unable to fight back. They have very low self-esteem and low confidence.

On redirect examination by the State, Stadler stated that M.M. did in fact exhibit the characteristic of helplessness often associated with the profile of a sexually abused child.

Dr. Sinal was qualified as an expert in pediatrics. She testified that she treated [M.M.] at Baptist Hospital in Winston-Salem in April 1988. Dr. Sinal stated that M.M. was admitted to the hospital because she had been "functioning as if she was paralyzed from the neck down." When tests for physical or neurological damage turned out negative, Dr. Sinal made a diagnosis of a "conversion reaction." She described a conversion reaction in the following manner:

A conversion reaction is where a person has a paralysis, for example, is unable to move an arm or a leg, but there is not anything wrong with muscles or nerves. There is no neurological condition to explain that. And the way I understand it is that it's the result, usually, of very severe anxiety and sometimes depression.

Over repeated objections by counsel for the defendant, Dr. Sinal stated her opinion that M.M. had a conversion reaction resulting from sexual abuse. Furthermore, she opined that M.M. displayed other characteristics of sexual abuse, including suicidal tendencies, depression, anxiety, frustration at her inability to control events around her and an increasing feeling of being victimized. Dr. Sinal also testified "that in many incidents a feeling of powerlessness, unable to control the environment around you is a sign, a symptom of sexual abuse."

Dr. Haberkern was qualified as an expert in the area of child psychiatry. He testified that M.M. was admitted to his service on 4 April 1988. He was M.M.'s attending physician until her discharge on 12 May 1988 and continued treating her on an outpatient basis thereafter. Dr. Haberkern diagnosed M.M. as suffering from post-traumatic stress syndrome and conversion disorder. He described conversion disorder, or conversion reaction, as "an impairment of function that has the appearance of being physical in nature. It begins generally in the context of a...