Kashif Allen Weathers v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 82A01-1608-CR-1751

Victim B.A. reported that on July 17, 2015 Weathers forced sex on her after an argument, despite her telling him “no,” and later pinned her against a wall to prevent her leaving.
B.A. reported the incident to police and underwent a hospital exam; she gave a handwritten statement to Detective Brian Turpin.
Detective Turpin conducted a videotaped interview of Weathers; Weathers admitted touching B.A. after she said “no” and wrote an apology letter conceding he held her and had sex with her while she was upset.
The State charged Weathers with Level 3 felony rape and Level 6 felony criminal confinement; both the recorded interview and apology letter were admitted at trial without objection.
During direct exam Detective Turpin testified (without objection) that the detective uses a letter-writing technique because “people that are innocent don’t write apologies,” and on cross-exam (elicited by defense counsel) he reiterated apologies indicate guilt.
The jury convicted on both counts; Weathers received concurrent sentences (9 years for rape; 18 months for confinement) and appealed claiming fundamental error from admission of the detective’s testimony.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether admission of detective's testimony constituted fundamental error	State: testimony admissible and not so prejudicial as to deny fair trial	Weathers: detective offered impermissible opinion of guilt under Evid. R. 704(b); this was fundamental error despite no contemporaneous objection	Court: No fundamental error; direct-exam testimony harmless given overwhelming independent evidence; cross-exam testimony invited by defense so not reviewable

Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (failure to object waives evidentiary claims unless fundamental error)
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (defines narrow fundamental error standard)
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (fundamental-error exception applies only in egregious circumstances)
Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (fundamental error not a substitute for preserved objections; limited relief for counsel oversights)
Kingery v. State, 659 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) (invited error doctrine bars appellate review when party elicited the error)
Brewington v. State, 7 N.E.3d 946 (Ind. 2014) (distinguishes invited error from fundamental error; invited error is estoppel-based)
McCovens v. State, 539 N.E.2d 26 (Ind. 1989) (error in admission harmless if similar evidence admitted without objection)
Palilonis v. State, 970 N.E.2d 713 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (improper vouching testimony found harmless rather than fundamental error)