Gutierrez v. State, 2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 68

Gutierrez convicted of two counts of child molesting (class A felonies).
M.L. alleged Gutierrez touched her in summer 2009; later she reported to mother and DCS.
M.L. was interviewed; a nurse examined her; results often normal in child molest cases.
During trial, M.L. testified inconsistently about penetration and timing.
Ditton (nurse) testified she believed M.L. told the truth, over objection.
Hasselman (DCS case manager) testified she absolutely believed M.L., prompting defense objection and later prosecutor comment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Ditton's testimony vouching for victim's truthfulness was admissible	Gutierrez argues Ditton invaded jury domain on credibility.	Gutierrez contends Rule 704(b) forbids such opinion testimony.	Admission error; vouching improper; reversible.
Whether Hasselman's testimony and prosecutorial comments were fundamental error	Gutierrez asserts waiver; argues fundamental error was present.	Gutierrez contends improper opinion testimony affected due process.	Fundamental error; requires reversal and new trial.

Head v. State, 519 N.E.2d 151 (Ind.1988) (bar on witness credibility testimony in child molest cases)
Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363 (Ind.Ct.App.2006) (physician testimony cannot bolster credibility)
Brown v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind.2003) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve evidentiary error)
Kimbrough v. State, 911 N.E.2d 621 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
Conrad v. State, 938 N.E.2d 852 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (review of evidentiary admission under substantial rights standard)
Oatts v. State, 899 N.E.2d 714 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary rulings; harmless error acknowledged)
Micheau v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (harmless error analysis for evidentiary issues)
Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126 (Ind.2013) (fundamental error doctrine in evidentiary context)