Frank Jacobs v. State of Indiana, 22 N.E.3d 1286

Jacobs was convicted after a bench trial of criminal deviate conduct and criminal confinement; double jeopardy concerns led to judgments on Counts I and II only.
G.L., a 16-year-old, alleged victim, lived near Jacobs and described an incident where Jacobs allegedly engaged in sexual acts with him.
The State charged Jacobs with four counts; the trial court entered judgment on I and II and sentenced to ten years total.
Jacobs argued the trial court erred by excluding testimony about G.L.’s truthfulness and sought to admit specific instances of G.L.’s alleged lies.
The Court of Appeals remanded on disputed issues, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address the cross-examination issue.
The Supreme Court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding specific instances of truthfulness under Evidence Rule 608 and related rules.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether exclusion of specific instances of truthfulness was proper	Jacobs argues Rule 608 permits cross-exam of truthfulness	The court properly relied on Rule 608(b) and impairment of credibility	No abuse of discretion; admissibility barred by Rule 608(b)

Beaty v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (Rule 608(b) prohibits extrinsic proof of specific acts about truthfulness)
McCorker v. State, 797 N.E.2d 257 (Ind. 2003) (Abuse-of-discretion standard for trial rulings on evidence)
Parker v. State, 965 N.E.2d 50 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (Right to present defense is not absolute; subject to evidence rules)
Walton v. State, 715 N.E.2d 824 (Ind. 1999) (Confrontation/scope limits on character evidence in truthfulness)
Turner v. State, 953 N.E.2d 1039 (Ind. 2011) (Ruling that relevance can justify limits on evidence)