211 N.E.3d 483
Ind.2023Background
- Defendant Matthew Hayko was charged with multiple counts of child molestation and incest based on allegations by his daughter (V1) arising from an incident in February 2018.
- Hayko sought to call three family members (paternal grandfather, step-grandmother, and aunt) to offer opinion testimony that V1 has a character for untruthfulness under Indiana Evidence Rule 608(a).
- The trial court excluded the proffered opinion testimony for lack of foundation, reasoning the witnesses were "too insular" and relied on insufficient contacts—analysis the court applied as if for reputation evidence.
- The jury convicted Hayko of one Level 4 felony child molesting count; he appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed on the opinion-testimony issue; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
- The Supreme Court held that, for Rule 608(a) opinion testimony, the proper foundation is that the opinion be rationally based on the witness’s personal knowledge and be helpful to the trier of fact; it found the trial court erred in excluding the testimony but ruled the error harmless and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Hayko's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Proper foundation for 608(a) opinion testimony | Foundation requires witness personal knowledge and helpfulness to jury | Additional requirement: sufficient and recent contact with the target witness | Foundation requires opinion rationally based on personal knowledge and helpful to the trier; no categorical recent-contact rule |
| Whether Hayko's three witnesses met foundation | Witnesses knew V1 since birth, observed her repeatedly, and relayed specific instances supporting their opinions | Witnesses lacked adequate familiarity, were insular and biased, contacts not sufficient | Their testimony met the personal-knowledge/helpfulness foundation; exclusion was based on misapplied reputation standard |
| Whether exclusion required reversal | Exclusion deprived Hayko of central impeachment evidence and harmed his defense | Error was harmless because other impeachment and impeachment-capable evidence was presented | Error was harmless under App. R. 66(A); conviction affirmed |
| Other evidentiary objections (voir dire, alleged vouching) | Hayko claimed improper vouching and conditioning jury on V1's credibility | State maintained questioning and testimony were permissible | Court found no abuse: voir dire and forensic-interviewer testimony proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2000) (discussing foundational requirements for reputation evidence under Rule 608)
- Barcroft v. State, 111 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. 2018) (lay-witness opinion testimony principles)
- Hill v. State, 470 N.E.2d 1332 (Ind. 1984) (trial court discretion on foundation for witness testimony)
- United States v. McMurray, 20 F.3d 831 (8th Cir. 1994) (federal authority declining a recent-contact requirement for 608 opinion testimony)
- United States v. Watson, 669 F.2d 1374 (11th Cir. 1982) (distinguishing reputation and opinion testimony foundations)
- Tunstall v. Manning, 124 N.E.3d 1193 (Ind. 2019) (explaining appellate "probable impact" harmless-error review)