During appellant’s trial for kidnap and several sex offenses, the court allowed prosecution testimony of an expert witness who was called to testify that appellant’s conduct was consistent with that of a rapist. The expert, a special agent with the Department of Justice, testified that comments appellant had made were those a rapist would make, driving the victim home and asking her questions about her life was a common practice of rapists, and that negotiating what sex acts she would perform was common. The appellate court here reversed appellant’s convictions, holding that the admission of the testimony constituted improper profile evidence and was an abuse of discretion. Admission of the evidence was not harmless because the jury’s verdict depended largely on whether it found the victim or appellant credible.