Eric A. Watson, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Eric Watson appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, of two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting ¹ and two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting.² He argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony from a sexual assault nurse examiner (“SANE”) about the effects of trauma on memory and about the SANE program generally. Because any error that might have occurred was harmless, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] R.H. was born in February 2008 and was adopted shortly thereafter by Jaymee. When R.H. was about four years old, Jaymee began dating Watson, and the two married in 2014. When R.H. was going into the second grade, the family moved into a trailer in Elkhart County. R.H.’s bedroom was at the opposite end of the trailer from her mother's bedroom. R.H. did not like being at the other end of the trailer and was afraid of how dark it was outside her window at night, so Watson would go into R.H.’s room to watch Scooby-Doo with her until she fell asleep.

[3] Around the same time, Watson and Jaymee's relationship deteriorated – they argued frequently and property was damaged during their fights. Watson's behavior toward R.H. changed as well. While lying with her in her bed at night, he began putting his hands up under her nightgown and rubbing her genital area over her underwear. He touched R.H. that way approximately five times before he began putting his hand underneath her underwear and rubbing her vulva. Watson used one hand and, as time passed, one or two fingers to touch inside R.H.’s vulva, but he did not penetrate her vaginal canal. R.H. felt “[u]ncomfortable” and “trapped,” like she “couldn't move” or “change what was happening.” (Tr. Vol. IV at 51.) She did not say anything or try to stop Watson because she was “scared.” (Id.) Watson touched R.H. on so many occasions “that it was quite frankly impossible ․ to keep track of when it would happen.” (Id. at 50.)

[4] On one occasion in her bedroom, R.H. and Watson watched a Scooby-Doo movie called “Safari So Good.” (Id. at 62.) It had been one of R.H.’s favorite Scooby-Doo movies” (id.), but she “can no longer watch it.” (Id. at 64.) During that incident she was wearing pajama pants under her nightgown, which she had started doing because she thought it “would almost be like a defense mechanism,” like “another layer.” (Id. at 63.) Watson slid his hand through the elastic waistband and molested her anyway.

[5] The molestations happened primarily in R.H.’s bedroom but also occurred in Watson and Jaymee's bedroom approximately ten times. In the master bedroom, if R.H. tried to rouse her mother in the middle of the night, Watson would tell her to leave her mother alone and come lay down with him. R.H. felt she had no choice. Watson would position himself in the middle of the bed, with Jaymee on one side and R.H. on the other with her back toward him. He would get R.H. under the blanket, loosen her pants, and reach inside to touch her genitals. R.H. described zoning out and fixing her gaze on a Tony Hawk PlayStation game that sat on the dresser.

[6] The abuse continued from the time R.H. was about seven years old until she was close to ten. In 2017, at the end of R.H.’s third-grade year of school, the family moved to DeKalb County. Watson and Jaymee separated in August 2019 and eventually divorced. R.H. did not disclose the abuse at the time it was occurring because she was scared – Watson had threatened her, but not in connection with the molestations. In addition, when the sexual abuse began, R.H. thought it was normal because it happened so often and Watson was her stepfather.

[7] When R.H. was in eighth grade, the school held a presentation on different forms of abuse. R.H. broke down during the presentation. She emailed her guidance counselor that same day asking to meet, and when she went to the counselor's office, she disclosed what Watson had done. The counselor, as a mandatory reporter, contacted authorities, who began investigating.

[8] The State charged Watson with two counts of Level 1 felony child molesting and two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. At trial, the State wished to present Nancy Grant, a sexual assault nurse examiner, as an expert. The State explained Grant would testify about SANE examination procedures, the female anatomy, the absence of injury in many abuse cases, the narrow window for collection of DNA evidence, and how trauma can affect a person's ability to recall events. The State noted Grant had not examined R.H. and would not render a case-specific opinion.

[9] Watson objected. He challenged Grant's qualifications as a nurse to testify about “the mental health aspect of these things and the psychology and trauma” (id. at 162), and he asked the court to exclude “the psychological portions” of her testimony. (Id. at 163.) He expressly said he had no objection to testimony on anatomy. He did not object that the underlying scientific principles were unreliable, and he acknowledged Grant might qualify as a skilled witness.

[10] After reviewing Grant's nine-page curriculum vitae, the trial court qualified her as an expert under Evidence Rule 702 “for not only the SANE program but also for the limited testimonial about what she's observed as far as trauma.” (Id. at 168.) The court noted she had developed and led the SANE program at her hospital, had extensive emergency room experience with all types of trauma, and had testified as an expert in that court before. The court preserved Watson's objection and noted that, even if labeled as a skilled witness, Grant could give substantially the same testimony.

[11] Grant testified that she had been a nurse for thirty-one years, including twenty-five years as an emergency room nurse. She developed the forensic nursing department at her hospital and served as its coordinator, overseeing a group of sixteen nurses who handled cases of child and adult sexual assault, physical abuse, domestic violence, and other trauma. She had conducted thousands of sexual assault nurse examinations. Grant explained the SANE examination procedures, delayed disclosures, the infrequency of injury findings in child sexual abuse cases, and the female anatomy. She then related how trauma affects a person's ability to recall events. She explained that during a traumatic event the body prioritizes oxygen to the limbs for the fight-or-flight response, which deprives the hippocampus – the brain's memory-forming structure – of oxygen. As a result, trauma victims often cannot form or retrieve memories around traumatic events. She likened the experience to having memories scattered like post-it notes across a desk that must be reassembled out of order -- not everyone can do so, and not everyone can recover every specific detail.

[12] Watson took the stand in his own defense and denied ever having touched R.H. The jury found Watson guilty of all four counts. After preparation of a presentence investigation report, the trial court held a sentencing hearing and imposed a cumulative sentence of 114 years.

Discussion and Decision

[13] Watson challenges the admission of two parts of the testimony of Grant, the sexual assault nurse examiner.³ We review a trial court's evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion. Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial court's “ruling is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.’ ” Id. (quoting Clark v. State, 944 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind. 2013)).

[14] Watson first argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Grant's background testimony about the SANE program when no physical examination of R.H. was conducted in this case. Watson claims the trial court admitted this background testimony over his relevance objection. (See Appellant's Br. at 13.) However, when we look at the transcript page to which Watson directs us, we see no such objection. Instead, what Watson said was:

․ So realistically what I'm asking to do is to limit this testimony to her actual observations which are none. But also as far as teaching goes, if they want to – if they want to put on some something about what is the anatomy or something like that, certainly I don't have an objection to that.

I find it objectionable though on relevancy grounds especially anything dealing with the mental health aspect of these things and the psychology and trauma. I don't think that a nurse is – despite having it – having additional training, I don't think that it's going to be – it's going to rise to the level of an expert witness. Maybe a skilled witness or something like that. But certainly I don't think that she should be able to talk too much about that. There's not – or, well, to talk about that. That's what I'm asking the Court to limit that out of her testimony; being specifically the psychological portions.

(Tr. Vol. III at 162-63.) Thus, Watson did not lodge a relevancy objection specific to the presentation of any background evidence about the SANE program. Issues not raised before the trial court are waived for appeal. Partee v. State, 184 N.E.3d 1225, 1233 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. We enforce this rule because we cannot say a trial court erroneously decided an argument that the trial court never had an opportunity to decide. Id.

[15] Watson next argues the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Grant's testimony about the effects of trauma on memory without sufficient foundational findings under Evidence Rule 702. Pursuant to Evidence Rule 702(b): “Expert scientific testimony is admissible only if the court is satisfied that the expert testimony rests upon reliable scientific principles.” While Watson preserved his objections to this evidence at trial, we need not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting it because any error would be harmless.

[16] Indiana Appellate Rule 66(A) instructs us to not reverse trial court decisions for errors that are harmless. The harmlessness inquiry considers “the likely impact of the improperly admitted or excluded evidence on a reasonable, average jury in light of all the evidence in the case” and whether that impact “undermines confidence in the outcome of the proceeding below.” Hayko v. State, 211 N.E.3d 483, 492 (Ind. 2023). That inquiry is not a review of the sufficiency of the remaining evidence; it compares what the jury heard with what it should have heard. Id.

[17] Watson challenges testimony from Grant that explained why a person who has experienced trauma may be unable to recall a traumatic event fully or in sequence – in other words, why a victim's memory might contain gaps. R.H.’s testimony, however, displayed no significant gaps about the molestations. Although years had passed, she recounted the abuse in concrete and specific detail: the layout of the family's trailer and where her bedroom sat within it; that Watson would watch Scooby-Doo with her until he thought she had fallen asleep; the progression of the touching from over her underwear to inside her vulva; the Tony Hawk PlayStation game she fixed her gaze on while lying in her mother's bed; the particular Scooby-Doo movie, “Safari So Good,” that was playing during one incident in her room; and the pajama pants she began wearing as another layer of defense from Watson's touching. Her account was consistent and unshaken, and it independently established every element of all four charged offenses. Because R.H.’s testimony exhibited the very specificity that Grant's trauma-and-memory testimony was offered to explain the potential absence of, it is not apparent how that testimony could have affected the jury's assessment of R.H's credibility. See Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1240 (Ind. 2012) (improperly admitted expert testimony harmless where the child victim's account was detailed, consistent, and unshaken and substantial independent evidence supported the conviction).

[18] Nor was Grant's testimony about trauma's impact on memory likely to inflame the jury or invite a verdict on an improper basis. Grant never examined or met R.H. and rendered no case-specific opinion; she spoke only in general terms about trauma and memory. The testimony neither cast Watson in a bad light nor vouched for R.H. On this record, there is no substantial likelihood that Grant's trauma-and-memory testimony impacted the verdict, and our confidence in the outcome is not undermined. We accordingly hold Watson has not demonstrated reversible error.

Conclusion

[19] Watson's challenge to Grant's testimony about SANE examination procedures was not preserved for review. Regarding the psychological and trauma portions of Grant's testimony, we need not decide whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting that testimony because any error would be harmless in light of R.H.’s detailed and unshaken account. We therefore affirm Watson's convictions.

[20] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1).

2.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b).

3.   Watson did not object at trial to Grant's testimony about female anatomy, delayed disclosures of abuse, or the infrequency of injury findings in child sexual abuse cases. Nor does he challenge those portions of her testimony on appeal.

May, Judge.

Mathias, J., and Felix, J., concur.