*1 1164 computation weekly available income reasonable subject to Mother’s father support guidelines. under the respect to of child is no order
visitation. There sup- pay child Mother requiring this child Nevertheless, actually spends Mother port. CONCLUSION expenses per week on approximately $52.00 strictly prohibits the use The A.D.R. child. The trial support of this
related to the media- from unsuccessful evidence derived weekly available in- reduced Mother’s court litigation. subsequent proceedings tion computing amount come this $52.00 Therefore, for retri- we reverse and remand support obligation under child Father’s al. Father Support Guidelines. Child Indiana Judgment reversed. inappropriate and argues deduction was this obligation any support requests that child SHARPNACK, C.J., NAJAM, J, and this deduction. computed without concur. calculation of a child A trial court’s support the child
support obligation under Marma presumptively valid. guidelines is Marmaduke, duke v. denied. Reversal (Ind.Ct.App.1994), trans. support order is merit a trial court’s child only the trial court’s determination ed where clearly logic and effect of the against CARNAHAN, Appellant-Defendant, Paul Kinsey, Kinsey v. facts and circumstances. appel On the Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. order, STATE support weight late review of a child disregarded and issues are and No. 79A02-9605-CR-304. only and reasonable inferences the evidence Appeals of Indiana. judgment are considered. Court favorable Judges are advised to avoid Id. 43-44. 26, 1997. June computa pitfall of blind adherence support giving care guideline tion of without require
ful to the variables consideration justice. changing the order do result Commentary Sup The to Ind.Child computa pertaining to the port Guideline 3. Weekly Adjusted Income reads in tion of part pertinent as follows: Support. A Legal Duty to deduction support actually paid, or is allowed for expended, for children born actually funds support is prior to the children for whom even being This is true established. not been re- though obligation has obligor bears duced to a court order. proving obligation the burden of obligation. payment of the actually expends that she Mother testified support of her older per week for the $52.00 Therefore, trial court did not err child. from Mother’s deducting this amount
H65 Deets, III, Cory, Charles R. Linda L. Hide Sandy Kennedy, Lafayette, ap- Deets & for pellant. Modisett,
Jeffrey General, A. Attorney Ofierski, General, Rafal Deputy Attorney In- dianapolis, appellee. for
OPINION
BAKER, Judge. Appellant-defendant ap- Paul Carnahan peals his conviction for Battery,1 a Class A Specifically, misdemeanor. he claims that admitting expert erred testimony regarding Syn- Battered Women’s (BWS) explain why drome his wife recant- prior allegations ed her of abuse.
FACTS 10, 1995, evening
On the of November wife, Carla, Carnahan and argu- his had an regarding payments ment some over-due property, during their which Carnahan face, causing injuries. struck Carla’s Af- her altercation, report ter the Carla filed a with Tippecanoe County Department. Police report, In her Carla indicated that Carnahan stomach, punched struck her in the face and threatened to kill her. Rec- 145-46, following day, ord at 196-97. The police spoke regarding officer with Carnahan pictures the altercation and took of Carla’s injuries. investigation, As a result of the battery, Carnahan was class Intimidation,2 A D misdemeanor and a Class felony. trial, testify
At the State called Carla to However, regarding incident. allegation Carla recanted her earlier in- although stead testified that she and Carna- 10, 1995, argued han had on November he never her or her. R. at hit threatened 150, 198-200. further that a testified family pressured filing member had her into report injuries a false of abuse and that her an occurred when old car radio fell out of (b). § § 1. IND. CODE 35-42-2-1. 2. IND. CODE 35-45-2-1 clearly against logic and effect R. at decision the face. closet and struck it. the facts and circumstances before (Ind. 1182, 1186 Shaffer testimony, the State response to Carla’s Ct.App.1983). violence, Carrie on domestic called Costello, the YWCA Domestic that which Director of Relevant evidence *3 any Prevention Pro- Intervention and the “existence of fact that is of Violence makes changed her of the ac explain why consequence Carla to the determination gram, to testified, probable probable over or less than it story. Specifically, Costello tion more Evi their without the evidence.” Ind. objections, that abusers and would be Carnahan’s is three-part cycle of vio- Rule 401. All relevant evidence through a dence go victims admissible, only marginally if relevant. lence, building even a tension which includes 402; Bates, at 756. Evid.R. 650 N.E.2d finally, a recon- battering phase and phase, a is determining whether evidence promises phase ciliation in which the batterer admissible, and this court must de relevant again. R. at 236- the victim never to strike the evidence tends to termine whether explained that battered 37. Costello then disprove a material fact in the case or husbands, or with their women often remain any light guilt on the or innocence of sheds concerns, housing, lack of because of financial State, 685, Tynes the accused. v. 650 N.E.2d physical in retaliation for leav- fear of harm 687 religious man- ing, attachment and emotional separation. or discourage which divorce dates Although our research reveals no case R. at 240-41. admissibility of to which addresses the BWS why prior alle explain a woman recants her trial, jury was Following the Carnahan abuse, recently gations of our courts have battery, a A misdemeanor convicted of class relevancy of in other discussed the BWS year imprisonment. and sentenced to one State, example, in v. contexts. For Isaacs However, suspended the court Carnahan’s 1036, (Ind.1995), N.E.2d 1040 cert. de 659 placed probation him for one sentence and on - nied, -, 205, 117 S.Ct. 136 U.S. he, among year, that other on the condition (1996), supreme 140 our court held L.Ed.2d participate in violence things, a domestic expert testimony regarding that BWS was appeals. counseling program. now Carnahan defendant, to refute the claim of a relevant wife, trial for the that he on murder AND DISCUSSION DECISION relationship an amicable with his wife had Carnahan contends that supreme prior her court ex death. testimony permitting expert re- erred properly was plained that evidence of BWS BWS, involving cycle garding particularly the to refute the defendant’s character admitted women and the reasons battered of violence relationship and to cast doubt ization of their husbands, explain why not leave their do that he not intend to kill on his assertion did allegation of her earlier Carla recanted at 1041. Because the evidence his wife. Id. this ev- Specifically, Carnahan claims abuse. guilt bearing on the defendant’s direct proceeding since idence was irrelevant to the innocence, or it was relevant. showing that Carla was there were no facts State, Similarly, in 675 N.E.2d Barrett v. Alternatively, woman. battered denied, 1112, (Ind.Ct.App.1996), trans. 1116 was rele- argues that even if the evidence that of BWS was this court held evidence vant, misleading should have been it was and question of whether a defen- relevant Rule 403. excluded under Ind. Evidence dependant, neglect of a dant knowingly intentionally neglected or A trial court is accorded discretion determination, spe- admissibility making In our we relevancy child. ruling on the State, rejected cifically the State’s contention testimony. Henson only (Ind.1989); was 1189, 1192 of evidence of BWS Bates v. admission N.E.2d the defendant ar- (Ind.Ct.App.1995). relevant cases which We that evi- gued and concluded absent self-defense will not reverse a trial court’s decision if it relevant to discretion, is, is admissible where the dence of BWS an abuse of
H67
(citing
court. Id. at 1117
is still
it is substantially
an issue before the
inadmissible because
1041).
Isaacs,
misleading pursuant
at
to Evid.R.
which
provides that relevant evidence is inadmissi-
opinions,
light
of these
we now
“probative
if
substantially
ble
its
value
Here,
consider the facts
this ease.
outweighed by
danger
... misleading
cycle
State offered
of violence
jury.” Specifically,
Carnahan contends
stay
abus
and the reasons
with their
victims
jury
used
the BWS
Carla,
why
previously
explain
ers to
who had
battery
infer that Carnahan committed
claiming
report
filed a written
that Carnahan
day
question
because
fit the
her,
allegations
had abused
recanted her
woman,
profile of
battered
instead of for
evidence,
accepted by
jury,
if
trial. This
purpose
explaining why
the limited
she
testified,
could show that at the time Carla
prior allegations.
recanted
*4
stage
she
in a
of reconciliation with
was
support
argument,
In
Carnahan cites
apprehensive
leaving
Carnahan or
about
was
v.
Steward
would that Carla was a battered present extremely was “at doubtful and the Notwithstanding woman. asser Carnahan’s widespread subject repudi- substantial tion, the record the reveals State contrast, at ation.” Id. 499. In BWS has sufficiently introduced which dem accepted in a been Indiana as valid scientific onstrated that was a battered woman. Carla Barrett, at theory. See n. Specifically, the State offered Carla’s testi (BWS accepted theory as valid scientific in mony previously stayed at a she had jurisdictions). Indiana and numerous other shelter, police reports battered women’s case, Additionally, present unlike the the ex- photos police Carla’s and the abuse testimony in not pert Steward was offered on showing injuries R. on Carla’s face. at credibility, the issue but child/witness’ 155-59, 188, Thus, proper 196-97. a founda rather, that a was offered to child had testimony. tion was laid for Costello’s Steward, been abused. inapplicable testimony assuming
Even was rele- we find Steward to the vant, Carnahan, nevertheless, argues present that it case.3 Steward, holding credibility. applicable, the court noted 3. Even if Steward were its ness' In appear support not conten- where a is called does Carnahan’s that in cases witness' question, sexual tion that BWS should be as into evidence of child abuse evidence of excluded may proven sufficiently misleading syndrome when on the issue of wit- admitted if offered case, syndrome in Steward v. trial did evidence discussed instant court In the State, supra. than in self-defense Other admitting the evi its discretion not abuse cases, likely most come in Here, the evidence will BWS was offered for of BWS. dence explaining the guise under the victim’s attacking Carla’s cred purpose of the limited behavior, e.g., why kept going back to she battered ibility, not to show that Carnahan abuser; why she now denies abuse fact, only testified after Costello Carla. place, reality tendency took etc. But changed story. having admitted and to conclude that is to take that evidence Further, early stated profile alleged victim fits the of a because the first ob testimony after Carnahan Costello’s woman, likely it is more than not battered testimony, testi jected to that Costello’s battery that she was the victim of mony being because of the was admitted It is crime. this reference and consis credibility of statements [Carla’s] cautions danger which Steward State R. at tency those statements. between [sic] prevent. Accordingly, I result, against and seeks to say that we cannot 238. As in much the same would limit BWS evidence testimony’s probative outweighed value was way expert is limited child jury. danger misleading by the abuse cases. court did not abuse its discretion trial expert testimony of admitting BWS. regard distinguish In this I fail to between *5 Judgment syndrome affirmed. child sexual abuse evidence and syndrome battered women evidence with re- NAJAM, J., concurs. gard concepts to whether the are scientifical- ly valid and as to whether SULLIVAN, J., opinion. concurs with likely assessing fact to assist the trier of SULLIVAN, concurring. Judge, case, long the issues of the so as the evidence imply is not used to that the act took prosecutor specifically conceded place. Costello, witness, Ms. stated opinion as to wheth- she could not venture concerns, Subject I concur. to these stated physical was a victim of er Ms. Carnahan therefore, extent, violence. To the Cos-
tello’s could be construed as indi- fact, to allow it cating such it would error clear, jury. It is to be considered however, evidence was in- that the Costello why solely explain a woman like
troduced Carnahan, refuse might, as did Ms. press charges might deny or that a bat- HAMMOND, INC., DEJA VU OF tery place. took In other words it bears ever Appellant-Defendant, respect to her upon her deni- battery. this reason I can al of the For STATION, CITY OF LAKE portion majority opin- agree with that Appellee-Plaintiff. distinguishes Steward v. State ion which (1995) Ind., upon grounds No. 45A03-9701-CV-2. Steward, expert testimony that in “was Appeals of Indiana. Court of not offered on the issue of the child/witness’ rather, credibility, but was offered 26, 1997. June Op. at 1167. that a child had been abused.” most, cases, However, many, if not BWS just susceptible
evidence is as to misuse and misinterpretation child sexual as is the abuse holding supports BWS purpose in Steward the use of and used for the limited of ex- reliable
plaining why prior allegation a child recants a circumstances. under these limited Steward, at 499. abuse.