Jeffrey Archer v. State of Indiana, 2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 469

Background

Jeffrey Archer appeals his convictions for Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting in Marion Superior Court.
L.B., born 2003, is Archer’s paternal step-granddaughter who visited Archer every other weekend; alleged touching occurred during those visits in 2011.
Trial resulted in a Class A felony conviction with two Class C felonies merged, and a 25-year sentence for A felony with 2 years for C felony served concurrently.
The State charged Archer after investigations by detectives and child services following L.B.’s disclosure on May 2, 2011.
Archer challenges competency/vouching concerns, alleged witness vouching, exclusion of post-allegation demeanor evidence, the standard of the penetration instruction, sufficiency of evidence, and counsel performance.
The Court affirms Archer’s convictions, rejecting each of his challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Competency statement as vouching	Archer claims court’s competency ruling amounted to vouching.	Archer argues the court’s favorable assessment invited jury reliance on competency.	Not impermissible vouching; competency determination is distinct from credibility.
Vouching testimony by witnesses	Archer asserts witnesses improperly vouched for L.B.’s truthfulness.	Archer argues multiple witnesses implicitly vouched for credibility.	Court did not abuse discretion; testimonies addressed coaching indicators rather than credibility.
denial to admit post-allegation demeanor evidence	Archer sought counseling records showing post-allegation demeanor; State opened door.	Archer contends admissibility despite hearsay concerns.	Trial court did not abuse discretion; records were hearsay within hearsay and inadmissible.
Final Instruction 6 on penetration	Instruction emphasized slightest penetration; could mislead jury.	Archer failed to object; instruction accurate and supported by precedent.	No reversible error; instruction was proper and not prejudicial.
Sufficiency of evidence and ineffective assistance	Evidence insufficient for Class A and Class C; trial counsel ineffective in several respects.	Archer contends both evidentiary sufficiency and counsel errors prejudiced outcome.	Sufficiency supported by victim testimony; no ineffective assistance shown.

Key Cases Cited

Aldridge v. State, 779 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (competency of child witnesses governed by Evid. R. 601 and trial court discretion)
Harrington v. State, 755 N.E.2d 1176 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (standard for determining child witness competency)
Head v. State, 519 N.E.2d 152 (Ind. 1988) (improper ultimate opinion on credibility when reviewing child testimony)
Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (coaching indicators do not alone amount to vouching; ultimate credibility remains with jury)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (coaching indicators and signs analysis do not constitute vouching when not expressing ultimate testimony)
Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguishes general indicators from ultimate coaching opinion)
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency of evidence; jury credibility assessment reserved for factfinder)
Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (touching may be insufficient for Class C; intent inferred from conduct)
Barger v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1304 (Ind. 1992) (un corroborated victim testimony permissible for child molesting convictions)
Robey v. State, 454 N.E.2d 1221 (Ind. 1983) (presumption of innocence jury instruction standards)
Spurlock v. State, 675 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. 1996) (instructional correctness in criminal trials)
Pope v. State, 737 N.E.2d 374 (Ind. 2000) (principles regarding instruction on credibility and weight of testimony)
Ward v. State, 969 N.E.2d 46 (Ind. 2012) (ineffective assistance framework and presumption of adequate representation)
Saylor v. State, 765 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 2002) (trial strategy; burden on defendant to show ineffectiveness)