ILNews

'Vouching testimony' not allowed in child sex abuse cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state’s rules of evidence don’t allow for “vouching testimony” in child sex abuse cases to help determine when a youth isn’t exaggerating, and the Indiana Supreme Court won’t carve out an exception allowing for that testimony in these types of cases.

In Keith Hoglund v. State of Indiana, No. 90S02-1105-CR-294, the justices affirmed a judgment from Wells County that found sufficient evidence to support two Class A felony child molesting convictions and a 50-year sentence for Keith Hoglund.

Hoglund allegedly had sexually abused and showed pornographic material to one of his daughters, who was 4 years old at the time. At trial, the state called as expert witnesses a pediatrician, clinical psychologist, and mental health counselor who evaluated the girl. They each testified that the girl was “not prone to exaggerate or fantasize” about sexual matters.  The jury convicted Hoglund on two counts of child molesting, but because of double jeopardy concerns, sentenced him to 50 years on only one count.

Hoglund challenged on appeal the admission of the vouching testimony. Last year, a divided Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentence.

The Indiana justices addressed an issue that hasn’t been ruled on before – the interaction between the state’s rules of evidence and a 1984 decision in Lawrence v. State, 464 N.E. 2d 923, 925 (Ind. 1984), that allowed for corroboration of a child’s testimony in court.

The justices pointed out that Indiana is in the minority of allowing some form of vouching for child witness testimony in these types of cases. This decision gave the Indiana Supreme Court the chance to revisit Lawrence to determine whether testimony that a child witness isn’t “prone to exaggerate or fantasize about sexual matters” is consistent with Rule 704(b) prohibiting witnesses from testifying about another witnesses “truthfulness,” and whether that precedent should be interpreted as an exception to the rule of evidence.

Justice Robert Rucker wrote that in a few cases, the Court of Appeals has interpreted Lawrence as representing an exception to Rule 704(b) about permissible witness testimony, but the justices decided that a shift in public attitudes concerning allegations of child sex abuse undermines the necessity to carve out an exception.

Even though the trial court allowed the evidence improperly, the justices ruled that the admission of vouching testimony was harmless and other evidence supports the convictions and sentence.

“To summarize, we expressly overrule that portion of Lawrence allowing for ‘some accrediting of the child witness in the form of opinions from parents, teachers, and others having adequate experience with the child, that the child is not prone to exaggerate or fantasize about sexual matters,’” Rucker wrote. “This indirect vouching testimony is little different than testimony that the child witness is telling the truth. As such it is at odds with Evidence Rule 704(b). Further, we decline to carve out an exception to the rule for sex abuse cases.”

In a footnote, Rucker wrote that this new rule doesn’t undercut the court’s decision in Carter v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877 (Ind. 2001), which involved testimony from an autistic child and a psychologist who was allowed as an expert to “supplement the jurors’ insight.”

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT