Melvin C. Hamilton v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 618
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Melvin C. Hamilton (defendant) was tried for multiple counts of child molesting based primarily on testimony of two foster children, A.S. (age 10) and D.P. (age 5), who alleged repeated digital penetrations by Hamilton while babysitting them.
- Both children made spontaneous disclosures to their foster mother and were interviewed by a trained forensic interviewer (Molly Elfreich) and examined by a doctor; Detective Jeremy Fortune later interviewed Hamilton.
- At trial the children denied being coached when defense counsel asked them on cross-examination if anyone had told them what to say. The State then called Elfreich, who described indicators she looks for that would suggest coaching and (over objection) testified she observed no indicators of coaching in these children.
- The trial court admitted Elfreich’s testimony over Hamilton’s objection; it also admitted portions of Detective Fortune’s interview in which he described the children’s statements as “powerful.” The jury convicted Hamilton of three Class A felony counts and acquitted on a Class C count.
- On appeal Hamilton argued the court erred by allowing vouching testimony (Elfreich and Fortune) that improperly bolstered the children’s credibility. The court reversed and remanded for a new trial, concluding Elfreich’s testimony was impermissible vouching and not harmless; it upheld admission of Fortune’s interview comments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hamilton) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether expert testimony that a child showed no signs of coaching constitutes improper vouching | Testimony about signs of coaching and absence of such signs is permissible because defense opened the door by asking whether the children had been told what to say | Such testimony impermissibly vouches for the child and invades the jury’s credibility-determination role; defense did not open the door because children denied coaching | Reversed: Elfreich’s opinion that she observed no indicators of coaching was improper vouching and not harmless; conviction reversed and remanded |
| Whether Detective Fortune’s characterization of the children’s statements as “powerful” was improper vouching | Statements were part of a police interview used to elicit a response from defendant and thus admissible; they lack the vouching force of trial testimony | Such characterizations improperly bolster the victims’ credibility in violation of Evid. R. 704(b) | Affirmed: Fortune’s interview comments were admissible in context as eliciting statements and did not constitute improper vouching |
Key Cases Cited
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (overruled prior allowance of expert "accrediting" testimony about child witnesses as inconsistent with Evid. R. 704(b))
- Lawrence v. State, 464 N.E.2d 923 (Ind. 1984) (earlier case permitting limited accrediting testimony about child witnesses)
- Rose v. State, 846 N.E.2d 363 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (discussing admissibility of testimony about child credibility indicators)
- Kindred v. State, 973 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (distinguished expert testimony about signs of coaching from ultimate opinion that child was coached)
- Steward v. State, 652 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. 1995) (expert testimony on child sexual abuse matters admissible only after defense calls credibility into question)
- Head v. State, 519 N.E.2d 151 (Ind. 1988) (reversing convictions where improper vouching invaded jury’s province)
- Lampkins v. State, 778 N.E.2d 1248 (Ind. 2002) (police statements during interrogation can raise Evidence Rule 704(b) concerns)
- Smith v. State, 721 N.E.2d 213 (Ind. 1999) (statements by officers in interrogations meant to elicit responses may be admissible without limiting instruction)