Dennis Winfert v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 49A04-1706-CR-1422

Victim A.A., born 2002, alleged sexual intercourse with defendant Dennis Winfert on Feb 17, 2016; DNA Y-STR testing on genital swabs matched Winfert’s male lineage profile.
State charged Winfert with rape (Level 3), sexual misconduct with a minor (Level 4), and battery (Class A misdemeanor); jury trial held May 22–23, 2017.
Mother testified for the State; on cross, defense sought to impeach her with prior statements about the child’s school behavior and suggested she lied at trial.
Defense called Detective Flynn; the State objected when defense tried to elicit Mother’s prior inconsistent statement through Flynn; the court sustained the hearsay objection and struck the questions.
Defendant testified and said he decided to testify because “[Mother] did not tell the truth”; the court sustained the State’s objection and struck that testimony under Evid. R. 704(b).
Jury convicted Winfert of sexual misconduct with a minor (Level 4) and acquitted on other counts; Winfert appealed arguing evidentiary and constitutional error.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether excluding Winfert’s testimony that Mother lied violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights	State: testimony was inadmissible under Evid. R. 704(b); exclusion proper	Winfert: as the defendant he could testify that a witness lied; Rule 704(b) applies only to witnesses, not the defendant; exclusion infringed constitutional rights	Court: defendant testified under oath and was a witness; Evid. R. 704(b) barred testimony about another witness’s truthfulness; no constitutional violation
Whether the court abused discretion by excluding extrinsic evidence of Mother’s prior inconsistent statement (via Detective Flynn)	State: objectionable hearsay unless properly offered under Evid. R. 613; trial court correctly excluded absent foundation	Winfert: prior inconsistent statement admissible under Evid. R. 613 to impeach Mother	Court: defense failed to make an offer of proof to preserve error; issue waived; alternatively, no probable impact on outcome

Ackerman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 171 (2016) (appellate standard of review is de novo for constitutional-evidence claims)
Speers v. State, 999 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. 2013) (same principle on review standard)
Bradford v. State, 960 N.E.2d 871 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (no witness may testify about another witness’s truthfulness)
Angleton v. State, 686 N.E.2d 803 (Ind. 1997) (competency rule precluding testimony on another’s truthfulness)
Schermerhorn v. State, 61 N.E.3d 375 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) (defendant’s testimony subject to ordinary evidence rules; accused lacks unfettered right to offer incompetent evidence)
Taylor v. Illinois, 484 U.S. 400 (1988) (criminal defendant’s testimony subject to evidentiary rules)
Jackson v. State, 925 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. 2010) (Evid. R. 613 allows use of prior inconsistent statements to impeach and such statements are not hearsay)
Dowdell v. State, 720 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind. 1999) (offer of proof required to preserve exclusion of testimony for appeal)