Melvin C. Hamilton v. State of Indiana, 2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 770

Defendant Melvin C. Hamilton was convicted of offenses based on testimony from two child victims, D.P. and A.S.
At trial a forensic interviewer testified about whether the children showed signs of coaching; she described two specific indicators (difficulty recalling details, restarting stories) without objection.
The interviewer then testified, over defense objection, that the children did not exhibit any signs of coaching — a broader, vouching statement.
The Court of Appeals initially held that the vouching testimony was inadmissible and that its admission was reversible error; the State sought rehearing.
On rehearing the court reaffirmed its original decision, focusing on the prejudicial nature of vouching where the conviction depends on victim credibility.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Hamilton preserved error regarding vouching testimony	State: defense did not object to earlier narrower testimony, so error claim should be limited	Hamilton: he objected to the broader vouching statement and preserved the claim	Court: preserved — objection to the final vouching statement was adequate
Whether the interviewer’s final statement was merely cumulative	State: final statement is cumulative of prior unobjected testimony about two indicators	Hamilton: the final statement encompassed a broader range of signs and was independent and more prejudicial	Court: final statement was independent and potentially more prejudicial; not merely cumulative
Whether admission of vouching testimony was harmless given victims’ own testimony	State: victims testified, so conviction stands despite error	Hamilton: vouching affects credibility determinations and is not necessarily harmless	Court: admission was reversible error because the verdict depended on victim credibility and the vouching likely influenced the jury
Whether child-sex-abuse cases allow an exception to the rule against vouching	State: urges deference to victim testimony in such cases	Hamilton: no exception should apply; vouching violates evidentiary rules	Court: no special exception; Evidence Rule 704(b) bars such testimony and error is not easily deemed harmless in credibility-dependent cases

Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind. 2015) (endorsing that indirect vouching improperly amounts to testimony that a child witness is truthful)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (vouching testimony violates Rule 704 and is inadmissible)
Traver v. State, 568 N.E.2d 1009 (Ind. 1991) (evidence supporting a witness’s credibility cannot be harmless when conviction rests on that credibility)
Miller v. State, 575 N.E.2d 272 (Ind. 1991) (adopting Kotteakos standard for reversible nonconstitutional error analysis)