Ruiz v. State Of Ind., 49A05-0906-CR-356.

• Citation: 926 N.E.2d 532
• Decision Date: 20 July 2010
• Docket Number: No. 49A05-0906-CR-356.,49A05-0906-CR-356.
• Parties: Alberto RUIZ, Appellant-Defendant,v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

926 N.E.2d 532

Alberto RUIZ, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

No. 49A05-0906-CR-356.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

May 14, 2010.
Rehearing Denied July 20, 2010.

926 N.E.2d 533

John F. Crawford, Crawford & DeVane, Indianapolis, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.OPINIONMAY, Judge.

Alberto Ruiz lived with his mother, his brother, and his brother's wife. In 2006, Ruiz's cousin and his cousin's wife began bringing their children to the home for day care. One of the children, K.P., was about five years old at that time. In 2008, K.P. told his mother Ruiz had molested him. K.P.'s parents contacted the police and Ruiz agreed to speak with a detective. Ruiz initially denied he had molested K.P. but eventually admitted to the detective he had placed his penis in K.P.'s mouth and had on multiple occasions touched K.P. in the area of his penis.

Ruiz's counsel wanted to present expert testimony by a clinical psychologist about coerced or false confessions. The State asked the court not to allow the witness to testify. The court excluded the witness on the grounds the testimony would not help the jury resolve any disputed facts, and would likely confuse the issues, mislead the jury, or unfairly prejudice the State.

We affirm.¹

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

A few days before Ruiz was charged with two counts of child molesting, he was interviewed by a detective who was an experienced sex crimes investigator. Ruiz was twenty-six, had completed only the ninth grade, and had never been in trouble with the law. He initially denied molesting the victim, but eventually made incriminating admissions during the interview.

Ruiz's counsel wanted to present expert testimony by Dr. Jeffrey Vanderwater-Piercy concerning false or coerced confessions.

926 N.E.2d 534

The Doctor is a licensed clinical psychologist who had practiced for twenty years and had testified as an expert fifty times. However, he had never been qualified in any court as an expert on coerced confessions specifically.

At the time of the hearing on the admissibility of the testimony, the Doctor had not yet conducted any testing of Ruiz, but if his testimony were to be admissible, the Doctor would examine Ruiz to determine if he had any personality traits that would make him susceptible to police influence and whether the police interrogation was psychologically coercive. The Doctor had examined five other defendants for the possibility of false confession but had not found any evidence those confessions were coerced.

The court declined to allow the Doctor's testimony because although the Doctor “possesses extensive psychological knowledge and experience,” (App. at 149), his testimony “would not assist the triers [sic] of fact in this case to understand scientific, technical or specialized evidence or to determine a fact in issue,” ( id. at 149-150), and it would “be likely to cause unfair prejudice, to confuse the issues or to mislead the jury.” ² ( Id. at 150.)

DISCUSSION1 Standard of Review

Ind. Evidence Rule 702 allows for expert witness testimony “[i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue.” Evid. R. 702. Whether the proffered witness meets these requirements and, thus, whether the witness should be allowed to testify, is a decision within the discretion of the trial court. Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934, 939 (Ind.1998), reh'g denied. Thus, we review such decisions only for an abuse of discretion. Id.

Ruiz acknowledges this discretion, but notes exclusion of a defense witness may have the effect of depriving a defendant of his right to put on a defense. In Holmes v. South Carolina, 547 U.S. 319, 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727, 164 L.Ed.2d 503 (2006), the Supreme Court addressed the tension between a defendant's right to put on a complete defense and evidence rules that permit the exclusion of evidence from criminal trials. It noted state and federal rulemakers have broad latitude under the Constitution to establish rules excluding evidence from criminal trials.

This latitude, however, has limits. Whether rooted directly in the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment or in the Compulsory Process or Confrontation Clauses of the Sixth Amendment, the Constitution guarantees criminal defendants a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense. This right is abridged by evidence rules that infringe upon a weighty interest of the accused and are arbitrary or disproportionate to the purposes they are designed to serve.

Id. at 324, 126 S.Ct. 1727 (internal citations and quotations omitted).

So, it concluded, the Constitution “prohibits the exclusion of defense evidence under rules that serve no legitimate purpose or that are disproportionate to the ends that they are asserted to promote,” id. at 326, 126 S.Ct. 1727 but trial judges may exclude evidence “if its probative value is outweighed by certain other factors such as unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” Id.

926 N.E.2d 535

The Holmes court noted “illustrations” of rules that were “arbitrary” because they “excluded important defense evidence but ... did not serve any legitimate interests.” Id. at 325, 126 S.Ct. 1727. One such “arbitrary” rule was held unconstitutional in Crane v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 683, 106 S.Ct. 2142, 90 L.Ed.2d 636 (1986), where Crane was prevented from attempting to show at trial that his confession was unreliable because of the circumstances under which it was obtained. The prosecution did not offer “any rational justification for the wholesale exclusion of this body of potentially exculpatory evidence.” Id. at 691, 106 S.Ct. 2142. And see Miller v. State, 770 N.E.2d 763, 774 (Ind.2002) (holding Miller was deprived of the opportunity to present a defense when the court excluded in its entirety proffered expert testimony about the psychology of police interrogation and interrogation of mentally retarded persons).

Ruiz's trial court excluded the Doctor's testimony based on factors noted in Holmes: “unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or potential to mislead the jury.” 547 U.S. at 324, 126 S.Ct. 1727; (App. at 149-50). Those generally valid considerations simply cannot justify exclusion when Ruiz's trial was to the bench,³ because harm arising from evidentiary error is lessened if not totally annulled when the trial is by the court sitting without a jury. See King v. State, 155 Ind.App. 361, 366, 292 N.E.2d 843, 846 (1973).

What might very well constitute prejudicial error in the form of testimony given before a jury does not necessarily constitute prejudicial error in a trial to the court. It must be remembered that a trial judge is presumed to know the intricacies and refinements of the rules of evidence and that he sifts the evidence and weighs it in

...