Hamilton v. State, No. 65A04–1412–CR–592.

Docket NºNo. 65A04–1412–CR–592.
Citation49 N.E.3d 554
Case DateDecember 23, 2015
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

49 N.E.3d 554

Melvin C. HAMILTON, Appellant–Defendant
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee–Plaintiff.

No. 65A04–1412–CR–592.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Dec. 23, 2015.


49 N.E.3d 554

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Angela N. Sanchez, Deputy Attorney

49 N.E.3d 555

General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

OPINION ON REHEARING

BARNES, Judge.

1] The State petitions for rehearing following our decision in Hamilton v. State, No. 65A04–1412–CR–592, 43 N.E.3d 628, 2015 WL 5254104 (Ind.Ct.App. Sept. 9, 2015). The State does not contend that we erred in concluding that certain vouching testimony was inadmissible at trial. However, it vigorously argues that we erroneously held that the improper admission of that evidence amounted to reversible error. We disagree and reaffirm our original decision but issue this opinion on rehearing for further clarification.

[2] First, the State contends we failed to adequately address whether Hamilton fully preserved his claim of error in the admission of the vouching testimony. As related in our original opinion, the State elicited testimony from a forensic interviewer that the victims, D.P. and A.S., had not exhibited certain characteristics of having been coached, namely whether they had trouble recalling details or had to start their stories over again after being asked detailed questions; Hamilton did not object to this testimony. He did, however, object to subsequent testimony stating that D.P. and A.S. did not exhibit any signs of coaching.

[3] The State faults us for assessing Hamilton's claim as one of indivisible ordinary reversible error instead of differentiating the unobjected-to testimony from the objected-to testimony. It is unclear what such differentiation would accomplish. The objected-to testimony was clearly improper, and Hamilton's objection should have been sustained per Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985 (Ind.2015), and Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind.2012). Hamilton adequately preserved his claim the State introduced improper vouching evidence against him.

[4] We recognize that Hoglund stated, “ ‘the erroneous admission of evidence which is cumulative of other evidence admitted without objection does not constitute reversible error.’ ” Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1240 (quoting Wolfe v. State, 562 N.E.2d 414, 421 (Ind.1990) ). Here, the interviewer's final, objected-to statement that D.P. and A.S. did not exhibit any signs of coaching is not merely cumulative of the prior unobjected-to testimony regarding two specific indicators of coaching. It includes a much broader range of possible signs of coaching...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 practice notes
  • Cannon v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A05–1707–CR–1544
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 11, 2018
    ...whether the defendant is guilty." Neder v. U.S. , 527 U.S. 1, 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) ; see Hamilton v. State , 49 N.E.3d 554, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Rather, our role is to determine "whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave ......
  • Mid-America Sound Corp. v. Ind. State Fair Comm'n (In re Ind. State Fair Litig.), No. 49S02–1601–CT–51.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 28, 2016
    ...to do so here further underscores why we should not infer an extraordinary liability when a contract fails to provide for it expressly.49 N.E.3d 554 ConclusionThe terms of Mid–America's invoices to the Commission did not clearly and unequivocally provide for retroactive application, and as ......
  • Alvarez-Madrigal v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1601-CR-162
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 13, 2017
    ...v. State , 43 N.E.3d 628, 633-34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Bradford v. State, 960 N.E.2d 871, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) ), on reh'g , 49 N.E.3d 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied ; see also Norris v. State , 53 N.E.3d 512, 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) ("Errors in the admission or exclusi......
3 cases
  • Cannon v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 34A05–1707–CR–1544
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • April 11, 2018
    ...whether the defendant is guilty." Neder v. U.S. , 527 U.S. 1, 19, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) ; see Hamilton v. State , 49 N.E.3d 554, 556 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015). Rather, our role is to determine "whether the error itself had substantial influence. If so, or if one is left in grave ......
  • Mid-America Sound Corp. v. Ind. State Fair Comm'n (In re Ind. State Fair Litig.), No. 49S02–1601–CT–51.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • January 28, 2016
    ...to do so here further underscores why we should not infer an extraordinary liability when a contract fails to provide for it expressly.49 N.E.3d 554 ConclusionThe terms of Mid–America's invoices to the Commission did not clearly and unequivocally provide for retroactive application, and as ......
  • Alvarez-Madrigal v. State, Court of Appeals Case No. 49A02-1601-CR-162
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • March 13, 2017
    ...v. State , 43 N.E.3d 628, 633-34 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (citing Bradford v. State, 960 N.E.2d 871, 877 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) ), on reh'g , 49 N.E.3d 554 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied ; see also Norris v. State , 53 N.E.3d 512, 524 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016) ("Errors in the admission or exclusi......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT