Charley was convicted of seven counts sexual abuse involving two minor girls. Testimony from an examining physician related that there was no physical evidence of sexual abuse in either of his accusers. The doctor's opinion, however, was that sexual abuse had occurred. Her conclusions were based on crediting the reports of the girls and their mother.

The State, additionally, offered two mental health counselors who testified as mental health experts. One of them testified that one of the girl's symptoms was more consistent with "the symptoms of children who have been sexually abused than with the symptoms of children who witness physical abuse of their mother." Further, both counselors were allowed to testify assuming that the sexual abuse had occurred. Thus the counselor's invaded a critical area reserved for the jury—the legal conclusion based on the facts.

The Appellate court found the Trial Court had erred in allowing those portions of the experts' testimony. The Appeals court, however, refused to overturn the convictions based on the weight of the other evidence offered by the State. The defendant had a previous conviction for sexual abuse of a child. Testimony from witnesses put him in the House at the time of the crimes. Defendant testified, but was contradicted by other witnesses. The Court thus held that the error was harmless and refused to overturn the convictions. One of the judges on the Appeals court dissented and filed a contrary opinion, arguing that the convictions should be reversed.