Opinion ID: 2422327
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The State Properly Alleged the Tolling Provisions of Section 205(e) in the Indictment, and the Judge Properly Denied Hoennicke's Motion for Judgment of Acquittal.

Text: In any prosecution under Section 205(e), the State must affirmatively allege the tolling provisions of Section 205(e) in the indictment. [15] Once the State does this, the[] [provisions] then become elements of the offense. [16] In the context of Section 205(e), one of the tolling provisions the State must affirmatively allege is that [n]o prosecution under this subsection shall be based upon the memory of the victim that has been recovered through psychotherapy unless there is some evidence of the corpus delicti independent of such repressed memory. [17] In this case, the State properly alleged in the indictment, independently for each count, that the prosecution was not based upon a memory of the victim recovered through psychotherapy. [18] That then became an element of the offense which the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt at trial. After the State finished its case in chief, Hoennicke filed a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal, in part citing the State's failure to prove that Karl's testimony was not the product of the psychotherapeutic recovery of repressed memories. After discussion with counsel for both parties, the judge denied Hoennicke's motion. At the conclusion of the trial, the judge properly instructed the jury that the State had the burden of proving beyond a reasonable doubt that the prosecution was not based upon Karl's memory, recovered through psychotherapy unless there was some independent evidence of the crime. [19] The jury, having implicitly determined that the State had carried its burden, found Hoennicke guilty of 12 counts. On appeal, Hoennicke argues that the judge should have granted his Motion for Judgment of Acquittal. We review the denial of a Motion for Judgment of Acquittal de novo to determine whether any rational finder of fact, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. [20] We do not distinguish between direct and circumstantial evidence. [21] The record before us offers minimal evidence to the effect that Karl's memories were not repressed nor recovered by psychotherapy. Indeed, the only evidence on point appears to be a brief exchange between Karl and the prosecutor on direct examination: [Prosecutor]: And it's been a number of years since this happened to you. Why did you come forward at this point? [Karl Hoennicke]: I was trying to protect somebody else from having it happen to them. [22] At no point in the record does any participant in the trialnot the judge, prosecutor, defense counsel, defendant, nor witnessesmention anything about repressed memories or psychotherapy. While the affirmative evidence in this case is minimal and circumstantial, our review is strict. We make no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence, we view this evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and we reverse only if no rational trier of fact could find Hoennicke guilty beyond a reasonable doubt on this evidence. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that Karl's stated motivation for reporting the abuseto protect othersis to the exclusion of alternative reasons, involving repression and recently, revived memory through the aid of psychotherapy. Otherwise, Karl would have cited that latter reason. A rational trier of fact hearing this testimony could have decided that the State had proved the lack of psychotherapy beyond a reasonable doubt. To be sure, the prosecutor could have more directly addressed this issue on direct examination by asking a more specific, pointed question. For whatever reason, however, he did not. We hesitate to announce a position, the essence of which involves the Court directing practitioners with respect to the precise semantics required to prove the elements of their cases. We are particularly hesitant to do so under the strict standard of review here.