Hoglund v. State
962 N.E.2d 1230
| Ind. | 2012Background
- Hoglund and Mallott married in 1998; AH, the child from Mallott's prior relationship, was about five when alleged abuse occurred.
- In 2002 the family relocated to Wells County; AH disclosed alleged shower incident and later alleged molestation by Hoglund.
- Detective questioned AH in 2006; Hoglund was charged with two counts of child molesting as Class A felonies; AH testified at trial.
- Experts ( Butler, Mayle, Shestak ) testified AH was not prone to exaggerate; Hoglund objected to vouching testimony.
- Jury convicted Hoglund on both counts; sentencing appeared to occur on a single count due to double jeopardy concerns.
- Court of Appeals affirmed; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to address admissibility of vouching testimony; decision focuses on Rule 704(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert vouching about credibility violates Rule 704(b) | Hoglund argues such testimony is improper vouching. | State contends the testimony falls short of direct belief in the child’s truth and is permissible. | Improvident vouching; overruled Lawrence; not permitted under Rule 704(b). |
| Whether admission of vouching testimony was harmless error | Harmless due to other substantial evidence of guilt. | Any error could be prejudicial and require reversal. | Harmless error; conviction sustained given substantial independent evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lawrence v. State, 464 N.E.2d 923 (Ind. 1984) (allowed accrediting opinions but not direct 'believing the child')
- Head v. State, 519 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. 1988) (permitted non-prosecutorial credibility remarks but not direct testimony that child tells truth)
- Barger v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1304 (Ind. 1992) (reputable testimony about truthfulness was disfavored)
- Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001) (psycho-social context allowed some testimony without crossing Rule 704(b))