Hayko v. State

• Docket Number: Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-2407
• Decision Date: 28 September 2022
• Parties: Matthew HAYKO, Appellant-Defendant, v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

196 N.E.3d 259

Matthew HAYKO, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 21A-CR-2407

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

Filed September 28, 2022

Attorney for Appellant: Matthew J. McGovern, Fishers, Indiana

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, George P. Sherman, Supervising Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana

Baker, Senior Judge.

Statement of the Case

[1] Our Rules of Evidence "should be construed so as to administer every proceeding fairly, eliminate unjustifiable expense and delay, and promote the development of evidence law, to the end of ascertaining the truth and securing a just determination." Indiana Evidence Rule 102. Upon that foundation, we begin with the premise that all relevant evidence is admissible subject to delineated categories of excluded evidence. See Indiana Evidence Rule 402. In this case of first impression, we write to clarify and delineate the two separate kinds of evidence under Evidence Rule 608 —opinion testimony and reputational testimony—and their respective foundational requirements to ensure that a just determination in a fair proceeding is not denied.

[2] Matthew Hayko appeals from his conviction after a jury trial of one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, contending in part that the trial court's conflation of the foundational requirements for reputational testimony under Evidence Rule 608 as to his proffered opinion testimony under the Rule, denied him the right to present a defense. This case alleged violations of no greater position of trust than that of a parent to his child, and Hayko's conviction turned on the jury's credibility determination in this "he said, she said" case. Finding that the court misinterpreted the Rule and thus did not allow Hayko the fair opportunity to challenge the "she said" part of the evidence with his proffered witnesses, we reverse and remand for a new trial. Though that issue alone is dispositive, we also address the court's admission of Hayko's statement to police because the issue is likely to recur in the new trial. On that issue, we agree with the trial court and affirm. Thus, we affirm in part, and reverse and remand in part for a new trial.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] At trial, the following evidence supported Hayko's conviction. V1,¹ who was born in November of 2006, is Hayko's oldest daughter. Hayko and V1's mother, L.D., have three daughters between them, including V1. The girls live with L.D., and Hayko exercises parenting time with them every other weekend. Hayko lives in Gentryville, Indiana, with his wife, A.A., and their two children.

[4] On the weekend of February 24th and 25th of 2018, when V1 was eleven years old, she and her siblings were with Hayko for parenting time. On the evening of February 24th, Hayko consumed several beers.² He played cards with V1 and rubbed her back as they did so. When it was V1's bedtime, he went with her to her room and continued to rub her back. He then put his hand under her bra and rubbed her breasts. He kissed V1 and put his hand in her underwear. When he awoke the next morning, he apologized to V1 and told her that neither of them should tell anyone about what had happened.

[5] Approximately a year later, V1 observed Hayko put his arm around her younger sister during their parenting time. Upon returning home to L.D., V1 immediately told her mother about what Hayko had done to her in 2018. As V1 made the disclosure to her mother, she was distraught and crying.

[6] Tammy Lampert, the executive director of a children's advocacy center, conducted a forensic interview of V1 on February 20, 2019. The next day, Hayko and his wife drove to child protective services offices in Rockport, Indiana after being contacted by Amy Jarboe, an employee there. However, Hayko was interviewed there by Indiana State Police Detective Charles Pirtle. Hayko was told that he could leave at any time. Hayko could leave the room as well as exit the building without having to pass through a locked door.³ Detective Pirtle tried "to put [Hayko] at a little bit of ease and comfort, that [he] wasn't there to embarrass him," and testified "that's why he was glad [he] got to talk to [Hayko] there and not have to come to his house or his place of employment." Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 187-88.

[7] Initially during the interview, Hayko claimed he could not remember the time frame of February 2018. He later recalled waking up in the same bed as V1, "cuddling [V1] like he would cuddle his wife in bed." Id. at 187. Hayko did not recall going to bed with V1, but remembered waking up in bed with her and thinking "this was crazy." Id. at 191. Hayko said that he "had been drinking a little too much, and "woke up next to V1" with his arm around her and thought, "You're not [my wife]." Tr. Vol. V, p. 7. Hayko also told Detective Pirtle that,

What I'm telling you is, is that I'm not – I'm not going to sit here and say that – you know, that my daughter is a liar. That's not what I'm trying to say. What I'm trying to tell you, is, is that, you know, there's alcohol involved. I had been drinking all day, was wasted.

Tr. Vol. IV, pp. 190-91.

[8] He remembered telling V1 at the time, "Just keep this between me and you." Id. Hayko also shared with Detective Pirtle that he had a problem with alcohol and that on the night in question, he "maybe blacked out." Id. at 195. He admitted to drinking "ten (10) or more beers." Tr. Vol. V, p. 44.

[9] The State charged Hayko with one count of Level 3 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony child molesting, one count of Level 4 felony incest, and one count of Level 1 felony child molesting.

[10] At trial, during voir dire, the State asked the potential jurors about witness credibility, their opinions about the truthfulness of children as witnesses, and their perceptions about how children would react to discussing sexual topics. During the State's case-in-chief, Lampert testified over objection about delayed disclosure and children's reactions to molestations. During his case, Hayko asked to present testimony from witnesses regarding their opinion of V1's character. In the offer to prove, the three witnesses testified independently about their interactions with V1 and their opinion that V1 was untruthful. The court concluded that Hayko had not laid a proper foundation for that testimony and denied it. At the conclusion of the jury trial, Hayko was found guilty of one count of Level 4 felony child molesting and was acquitted on all other counts. The court sentenced Hayko to a term of eight years executed with two years suspended to probation. Hayko now appeals.

Discussion and Decision

I. Admission of Hayko's Statement to Police

[11] Because it is likely that this issue will present itself again upon retrial, we first address Hayko's challenge to the admission of his statement to police. In particular, Hayko challenges the court's decision to admit the portion of his statement to Detective Pirtle that he did not want to call V1 a liar and the State's characterization of that statement at trial as an admission. Hayko says that he was in custody at the time the statement was made and that the statement is inadmissible because he was not given his Miranda⁴ warnings prior to speaking with Detective Pirtle.

[12] Our standard of review of a trial court's admission of evidence is an abuse of discretion. Mack v. State , 23 N.E.3d 742, 750 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014). "A trial court abuses its discretion if its decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or if the court misapplies the law." Id.

[13] As our Supreme Court has stated,

The custody inquiry is a mixed question of fact and law: the circumstances surrounding [the defendant's] interrogation are matters of fact, and whether those facts add up to Miranda custody is a question of law. SeeThompson v. Keohane , 516 U.S. 99, 112-13, 116 S. Ct. 457, 133 L. Ed. 2d 383 (1995).

We defer to the trial court's factual findings, without reweighing the evidence; and we consider conflicting evidence most favorably to the suppression ruling. State v. Quirk , 842 N.E.2d 334, 340 (Ind. 2006). But we review de novo the legal question of whether the facts amounted to custody. [State v. ]Brown , 70 N.E.3d [331, 335 (Ind. 2017)].

* * *

Custody under Miranda occurs when two criteria are met. First, the person's freedom of movement is curtailed to "the degree associated with a formal arrest." Maryland v. Shatzer , 559 U.S. 98, 112, 130 S. Ct. 1213, 175 L. Ed. 2d 1045 (2010) (quoting New York v. Quarles , 467 U.S. 649, 655, 104 S. Ct. 2626, 81 L. Ed. 2d 550 (1984) ). And second, the person undergoes "the same inherently coercive pressures as the type of station house questioning at issue in Miranda ." Howes v. Fields , 565 U.S. 499, 509, 132 S. Ct. 1181, 182 L. Ed. 2d 17 (2012).

State v. E.R. , 123 N.E.3d 675, 680 (Ind. 2019).

[14] Here, the court admitted Hayko's statement in evidence. And the record contains facts supporting the court's decision that the statement was not the result of a custodial interrogation. Hayko drove to the child protective services building with his then-wife A.A. after being contacted by Amy Jarboe, an employee with child protective services. He was led through the building into an area not accessible to the public and out of public view. Though the record is unclear as to whether Hayko expected to be interviewed by law enforcement as well at that time, Detective Pirtle made clear from the outset that he worked for the Indiana State Police, and Hayko participated in the interview, nonetheless.

[15] Jarboe was in the interview room with Pirtle and Hayko for the first fifteen minutes of the thirty-to-thirty-five-minute interview before Detective Pirtle asked her to leave. Detective Pirtle stated that his reason for doing so was to reduce the amount of embarrassment to Hayko by having to discuss allegations of criminal sexual behavior in...