Ellica Ann Houser v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
79A02-1603-CR-556
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 27, 2016Background
- Victim K.N., then in 6th–7th grade, lived with mother Ellica Houser and stepfather Michael; Michael repeatedly sexually abused K.N. at home between 2011–2012.
- K.N. reported the abuse to a school counselor who notified law enforcement and DCS; another girl (A.E.) later disclosed a separate incident involving Michael.
- State charged Houser with neglect of a dependent (Class D felony) for failing to prevent Michael’s abuse.
- At trial the State elicited testimony about uncharged White County incidents (Michael unlacing bikini tops and taking nude photos while Houser was present) over Houser’s motion in limine; court gave a limiting instruction that the evidence was admissible only to show Houser’s knowledge.
- The State also presented expert forensic interviewer Dawn Gross to explain child disclosure dynamics and reasons for delayed disclosure/recantation; Houser objected as improper vouching.
- Jury convicted Houser; on appeal she argued admission of the White County evidence violated Evid. R. 404(b) and Gross’s testimony violated Evid. R. 704(b). Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Houser) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of White County acts under Evid. R. 404(b) | Acts show Houser’s knowledge of Michael’s sexual conduct and rebut her claim of ignorance | Prior-acts evidence was only offered to show Houser’s bad character/propensity and was unfairly prejudicial | Admitted: evidence relevant to Houser’s knowledge; limiting instruction given; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice |
| Admissibility of expert testimony (Gross) re: disclosure/recantation (Evid. R. 704/704(b)) | Expert explains child-disclosure dynamics beyond jurors’ common experience and does not opine on truth of allegations | Testimony improperly vouched for victims and invaded jury’s credibility determination | Admitted: expert gave general, non‑specific explanations; did not testify as to truthfulness and did not violate rule prohibiting vouching |
Key Cases Cited
- Sparkman v. State, 722 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Goldsberry v. State, 821 N.E.2d 447 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (404(b) analysis: relevance to non-propensity issue and 403 balancing)
- Evans v. State, 727 N.E.2d 1072 (Ind. 2000) (trial court’s wide latitude in 403 probative/prejudice balancing)
- Whitehair v. State, 654 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (404(b) evidence of knowledge admissible when defendant places knowledge at issue)
- Angleton v. State, 686 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 1997) (witnesses may not testify that another witness is telling the truth)
- Otte v. State, 967 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (permitting expert testimony on victim behavior and recantation to aid jury credibility assessment)
- Ware v. State, 816 N.E.2d 1167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (presumption that jurors follow limiting instructions)
- Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (expert/vouching principles)