United States v. Alphonso O. Houser
United States Court of Military Appeals
36 M.J. 392 (1993)
- Written by Whitney Kamerzel , JD
Facts
A 15-year-old girl, W, alleged she was raped by Alphonso Houser (defendant), who W viewed as an uncle. Houser denied a rape took place and, during the trial, raised questions about W’s failure to resist or report the event until the next morning. A doctor examined W after she reported the crime and concluded that she had injuries consistent with rape. The prosecution (plaintiff) used Dr. Pamela Remer as an expert witness to testify about rape-trauma syndrome (RTS). Dr. Remer used her RTS model as a framework to identify common symptoms experienced after a rape to help the jury understand why women who have been raped commonly wait to report the crime. The prosecution and Dr. Remer explained to the jury that Dr. Remer was merely presenting symptoms that other women had experienced and that it was the jury’s job to determine whether the offense had taken place. Because Dr. Remer had never met W, Houser objected that Dr. Remer’s testimony could only unfairly prejudice the jury. The judge overruled the objection and allowed Dr. Remer to testify. Houser was convicted of rape and sentenced to dishonorable discharge and imprisonment for 30 years. The Court of Military Review affirmed, and Houser appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Crawford, J.)
Concurrence (Gierke, J.)
Concurrence (Wiss, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 832,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,500 briefs, keyed to 994 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.