Background
Robert Lee Simons was convicted by a jury of first-degree and second-degree criminal sexual conduct based on allegations that he sexually abused his stepdaughter beginning when she was a young child. She testified that the abuse continued until she was about 14. Simons testified in his own defense and denied the allegations. The trial court sentenced him to 25 to 50 years for CSC-I and 5 to 15 years for CSC-II.
At trial, Thomas Cottrell, an expert with decades of experience working with child sexual-abuse victims, answered juror-submitted questions about fabricated allegations. He testified that only a handful of the roughly 300 to 350 children with whom he had worked had made false allegations and described the proportion as a “very small percentage.” Simons did not object at trial but later raised improper vouching in a motion for a new trial, which the trial court denied.
The Court’s Holding
The Michigan Court of Appeals held that Cottrell’s testimony impermissibly vouched for the complainant. Although he did not give a precise numerical percentage, his statements conveyed the likelihood that children reporting sexual abuse tell the truth. Under Michigan precedent, an expert’s general opinion that children rarely fabricate sexual-abuse allegations inferentially vouches for the particular complainant.
Reviewing the unpreserved issue for plain error, the court found the error clear and outcome-determinative. The case was essentially a credibility contest: there was no physical evidence, no witness to the alleged assaults, and no inculpatory statement by Simons. Because the verdict depended on the jury’s assessment of the complainant’s credibility, the expert’s vouching likely affected the result and seriously undermined the fairness, integrity, or public reputation of the proceedings.
Key Takeaways
- An expert may not testify that children overwhelmingly or almost always tell the truth when reporting sexual abuse.
- A witness need not provide an exact percentage to vouch improperly; phrases such as “only a handful” and “very small percentage” can convey the same prohibited message.
- In a close credibility contest without physical evidence, eyewitnesses, or inculpatory statements, improper expert vouching can warrant reversal under plain-error review.
Why It Matters
The decision reinforces Michigan’s strict limits on expert testimony in child-sexual-abuse prosecutions. Experts may explain behaviors commonly associated with abuse in appropriate circumstances, but they may not supply jurors with statistical or experience-based assurances that complainants generally are truthful.
The court vacated both convictions and remanded for a new trial. Because that relief resolved the appeal, it declined to address Simons’ remaining claims.