Bradford v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 32
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Bradford was charged with child molesting as a class C felony after a DCS investigation concluded abuse occurred; Arrendale, a DCS case assessor, testified that the abuse was substantiated; defense objected to 704(b) testimony; prosecutor referenced the substantiation in closing; jury convicted and Bradford was sentenced to five years with two suspended; court granted reversal and remand for retrial.
- Bradford and his relatives traveled to Orange County, Indiana; A.T. testified Bradford touched her inappropriately while in a hotel; M.B. corroborated some touching; Bradford denied the conduct in his police statement; DCS investigated and Arrendale testified about the investigation's conclusions.
- The State’s closing arguments highlighted Arrendale’s substantiation as corroboration of the victims’ testimony.
- The court of appeals ultimately held there was reversible error in admitting Arrendale’s testimony on substantiation and remanded for retrial.
- The issue on appeal centers on whether 704(b) was violated by Arrendale’s testimony and whether any error was harmless.
- The court concluded the 704(b) issue regarding truth of the allegations was violated and the error was not harmless, reversing and remanding for retrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Arrendale’s testimony about substantiation a 704(b) violation? | Bradford argues it invaded the jury’s province by expressing an opinion on truth. | State contends testimony was permissible indirect credibility facilitation. | 704(b) violation affirmed for truth of allegations. |
| Did Arrendale’s testimony directly vouch for A.T.’s credibility? | Bradford claims it was direct testimony about credibility. | State contends it did not directly state credibility. | Not direct vouching; credibility not directly commented on. |
| Was the admission of Arrendale’s testimony harmless error? | Error could have influenced the verdict by bolstering the State’s case. | Not explicitly stated; state argued no undue prejudice. | Not harmless; error contributed to conviction. |
| What is the proper remedy? | Reversal and remand for retrial. | Remand for retrial not necessary if harmless. | Reversed and remanded for retrial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. State, 464 U.E.2d 923 (Ind. 1984) (child witnesses require credibility assessments via collateral opinions; allows some accreditation by others without direct truth statements)
- Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001) (autistic victim testimony near but not directly stating truth; permissible indirect inference to credibility)
- Jones v. State, 581 N.E.2d 1258 (Ind.Ct.App.1991) (protective services testimony about abuse may invade jury's province if too direct on truthfulness)
- Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (repeated testimony of belief in victim's allegations can invade jury’s province)
- Krumm v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (psychologist/forensic testimony proper when not directly commenting on credibility)