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. My mother got temporary guardianship of my children in 2012. my husband and I got divorced 2015 the judge ordered me to have full custody of all my children. Does this mean the temporary guardianship is over? I'm confused because my divorce papers say I have custody and he gets visits and i get to claim the kids every year on my taxes. So just wondered since I have in black and white that I have custody if I can go get my kids from my moms and not go to jail?

  2. Someone off their meds? C'mon John, it is called the politics of Empire. Get with the program, will ya? How can we build one world under secularist ideals without breaking a few eggs? Of course, once it is fully built, is the American public who will feel the deadly grip of the velvet glove. One cannot lay down with dogs without getting fleas. The cup of wrath is nearly full, John Smith, nearly full. Oops, there I go, almost sounding as alarmist as Smith. Guess he and I both need to listen to this again: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CRnQ65J02XA

  3. Charles Rice was one of the greatest of the so-called great generation in America. I was privileged to count him among my mentors. He stood firm for Christ and Christ's Church in the Spirit of Thomas More, always quick to be a good servant of the King, but always God's first. I had Rice come speak to 700 in Fort Wayne as Obama took office. Rice was concerned that this rise of aggressive secularism and militant Islam were dual threats to Christendom,er, please forgive, I meant to say "Western Civilization". RIP Charlie. You are safe at home.

  4. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  5. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

ADVERTISEMENT