Craig Sampson v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. LEXIS 668
Ind.2015Background
- Victim S.B., then 9–10, testified that family friend Craig Sampson touched her vaginal area while she sat on his lap at his home; she disclosed years later after a church program and a forensic interview at an advocacy center.
- Sampson was charged with class C child molesting; first trial mistried, second trial (2013) resulted in conviction and a 4-year sentence (3 years suspended).
- At trial, forensic interviewer Jenny Wood testified about signs of coaching and answered that she observed no signs S.B. had been coached; defense did not object at trial.
- The State also elicited Child Sexual Abuse Accommodation Syndrome (CSAAS) testimony over objection, and S.B. answered a question about how the incident affected her over objection (victim-impact issue).
- On appeal Sampson raised: (1) improper admission of CSAAS; (2) improper vouching via testimony that S.B. was not coached (fundamental error claim due to failure to object); and (3) improper victim-impact testimony. The Court of Appeals affirmed on harmless-error and nonfundamental-error grounds; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address the coaching-testimony issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of CSAAS evidence | State: CSAAS testimony helps explain victim behavior and is admissible; any error harmless | Sampson: CSAAS was unduly prejudicial and should have been excluded | Court: Affirmed Court of Appeals; any error was harmless (summarily affirmed) |
| Testimony that interviewer observed no signs of coaching | State: Wood could describe indicators and say whether she observed them; such testimony is permissible | Sampson: Testimony that victim showed no signs of coaching impermissibly vouched for credibility and violated Evid. R. 704(b) and Hoglund | Court: Testifying that a child did not exhibit signs of coaching is improper vouching unless the defense opened the door; here testimony was improper but not fundamental error because it did not make a fair trial impossible |
| Victim-impact testimony (how incident affected S.B.) | State: Inquiry probative of victim’s experience and effect of offense | Sampson: Question elicited impermissible victim-impact testimony | Court: Any error was harmless; no reversal required (affirmed by Court of Appeals) |
| Failure to object / Fundamental-error review | State: No contemporaneous objection; standard requires showing error was blatant and denied fundamental due process | Sampson: Failure to object should be excused because vouching was fundamental | Held: Failure to object waived review absent fundamental error; court concluded no fundamental error occurred given cross-examination, defendant’s testimony, and the overall evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (disallows expert or other testimony that indirectly vouches for a child-witness’s truthfulness under Evid. R. 704(b))
- Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) (discusses admissibility and dangers of CSAAS testimony and when such evidence may rebut defense attacks on credibility)
- Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (held opinion that a child was not coached amounted to improper vouching; permitted testimony about coaching indicators but not ultimate opinion)
- Archer v. State, 996 N.E.2d 341 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (upheld admission where interviewer described coaching indicators and was asked only whether she observed those indicators)