MEMORANDUM DECISION
FILED
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), Apr 24 2017, 9:26 am
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
CLERK
regarded as precedent or cited before any Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
court except for the purpose of establishing and Tax Court
the defense of res judicata, collateral
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joel C. Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Attorney General of Indiana
Wieneke Law Office, LLC
Brooklyn, Indiana Christina D. Pace
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
William Culler, April 24, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
33A05-1611-CR-2702
v. Appeal from the Henry Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Kit C. Dean Crane,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
33C02-1603-FA-2
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 1 of 19
Case Summary
[1] Between late-2009 and February of 2014, Appellant-Defendant William Culler
molested his step-daughter, Y.R., on numerous occasions. In March of 2016,
Culler was charged with three counts of Class A felony child molesting, one
count of Class C felony child molesting, three counts of Class D felony
vicarious sexual gratification, and one count of Class B misdemeanor battery.
Following a three-day jury trial, Culler was found guilty of all but the Class B
misdemeanor battery count. The trial court subsequently sentence Culler to an
aggregate 110-year sentence with 108 years executed in the Department of
Correction (“DOC”) and two years suspended to probation.
[2] On appeal, Culler challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain two of
his three convictions for Class A felony child molesting. Culler also contends
that the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing the admission of
certain testimony. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Cynthia Robbins married Culler in 2008. In 2009, Cynthia moved to Henry
County with Culler and her two daughters, H.R. and Y.R. Cynthia, who was
employed as a nurse at IU North Hospital, worked the night shift three nights a
week. On nights when Cynthia worked, H.R. would go stay with her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 2 of 19
grandmother,1 and Y.R. would stay in the family home with Culler. At all
relevant times, Culler was “at least fifty-some years old.” Tr. p. 82.
[4] At some point around Christmas of 2009, when Y.R. was in fourth grade, 2
Culler began touching Y.R. inappropriately. The first occasion occurred one
evening when Cynthia and H.R. were not home. On this evening, Culler and
Y.R. were together on a couch watching the movie “Tom and Jerry.” Tr. p. 20.
At the time, Culler was sitting up and Y.R. was lying with her head placed on
Culler’s leg. Both Y.R. and Culler were wearing pajamas, with Culler wearing
a pair of red pajama pants “that opened up at the crotch area.” Tr. p. 21. At
some point while Culler and Y.R. were watching the movie, Culler “put his
hand down [Y.R.’s] pants.” Tr. p. 20. Culler touched Y.R.’s skin underneath
both her clothing and her undergarments. Culler also placed his hand on Y.R.’s
vagina. Culler asked Y.R. “if it was okay and [Y.R.] said, sure, because [she]
was really scared and because [her] mom and [Culler] had been fighting a lot
and he’d been cornering [Cynthia] and he [had] even cornered [Y.R.] a few
times.” Tr. p. 20. Culler left his hand touching Y.R.’s vagina “until the end of
the movie.” Tr. p. 21.
1
Cynthia testified that although Culler was civil and nice to Y.R., he treated H.R., who was older than
Y.R., “differently.” Tr. p. 82. Culler would turn his back on H.R., make fun of H.R., and “put her down.”
Tr. p. 83. Ultimately, Culler made H.R. “feel very unwelcome in her home.” Tr. p. 83.
2
Y.R. was born on February 26, 2000, and was nine years old in the latter part of 2009.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 3 of 19
[5] The inappropriate touching occurred a number of times while Y.R. was still in
fourth grade. On these occasions, Culler would approach Y.R. and ask her to
watch a movie after Cynthia left for work and H.R. left to stay with her
grandmother. Culler would sit near Y.R. and spread a blanket over both
himself and Y.R. At some point during the movie, Culler would begin
touching Y.R. inappropriately, touching her breasts, buttocks, and vagina.
Culler would touch Y.R.’s breasts and vagina underneath her clothing but
would touch her buttocks over her clothing. When touching Y.R.’s breasts,
Culler “would squeeze them” and would “pinch [her] nipples.” Tr. p. 25.
Culler would also “rub” Y.R.’s buttocks and vagina. Tr. p. 25. While Culler
would use his right hand to touch Y.R., he would use his left hand to
masturbate. When Culler finished touching Y.R., he would “either let out a
sigh or he’d say something likem [sic] oh, my, or something like that.” Tr. p.
27. The inappropriate touching continued about once a week until the summer
of 2010 when Cynthia and H.R. were “home more” and there were “more
people around.” Tr. p. 28.
[6] Culler again began touching Y.R. inappropriately in the fall of 2010 when Y.R.
started fifth grade. The manner of these touchings was the same as had
occurred during the 2009-2010 school year. As had occurred the year before,
the inappropriate touching continued until late spring/early summer of 2011.
Culler did not touch Y.R. inappropriately during Y.R.’s sixth grade year, i.e.,
the 2011-2012 school year, because Y.R. would hide in her bedroom.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 4 of 19
[7] When Y.R. was in either fifth or sixth grade, Culler began coming into Y.R.’s
bedroom in the morning while Y.R. was getting dressed. On at least one
occasion, Culler told Y.R. “that [her] boobs were cute.” Tr. p. 30. Y.R.
complained to her mother about Culler’s actions on numerous occasions asking
her mother “if it was right for a dad to come in while their daughters are
dressing.” Tr. p. 29. After Y.R. complained, Cynthia told Culler “several times
to stop.” Tr. p. 29.
[8] In approximately March of Y.R.’s seventh grade year, Cynthia and H.R. went
on a mission trip to Mexico. Cynthia and H.R. were gone for “probably a week
or two” on this trip. Tr. p. 31. On Sunday while Cynthia and H.R. were on the
trip, Y.R. and Culler went to church. After arriving home from church, Culler
asked Y.R. if she wanted to watch a movie. Y.R. agreed to watch a movie
“[b]ecause [the inappropriate touchings] hadn’t happened for so long, [Y.R.]
thought that [Culler] understood that [she] didn’t want that and that he
shouldn’t be doing that.” Tr. p. 31. Y.R., who was still wearing the skirt that
she had worn to church, covered up with a blanket and “was laying on [her]
side” on the couch when Culler approached and sat down next to her. Tr. p.
31. Culler then “put his hand underneath the blanket and [Y.R.’s] skirt and he
put his fingers inside of [her] vagina and he was moving them around.” Tr. p.
31. After Culler penetrated her vagina with his fingers, Y.R. became “scared.”
Tr. p. 32. Y.R. “waited until the end of the movie and then [she] went in [her]
room and [she] didn’t come back out the rest of the day.” Tr. p. 32.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 5 of 19
[9] Although she did not remember the exact days, Y.R. maintains that Culler
penetrated her vagina with his fingers on other occasions. After the initial
penetration, Culler’s pattern of touching Y.R., which had remained similar to
that employed by Culler when Y.R. was younger, would include penetration of
Y.R.’s vagina. Y.R. remembers that Culler penetrated her vagina with his
fingers in both the spring and fall of 2013 and in either January or February of
2014. Y.R. was thirteen when the abuse occurred during the spring and fall of
2013 and thirteen or fourteen when the abuse occurred in the early months of
2014. The day or so after touching Y.R. inappropriately, Culler would “tell
[Y.R.] that it was [their] secret and that [she] wasn’t supposed to tell, [she was]
not supposed to tell anyone about it.” Tr. p. 33.
[10] While this abuse was ongoing, Y.R. often felt threatened by Culler who would
pin her in a corner against the kitchen counter with his body and “put his crotch
against” Y.R.’s crotch. Tr. p. 33. Culler also indicated in front of Y.R. that “he
used to be a sharp shooter” and showed Y.R. where he kept “all the guns.” Tr.
p. 34. Although Culler “only ever showed [Y.R.] the guns once, … multiple
times a week he would say that he used to be a sharp shooter, about how great
he is at shooting.” Tr. p. 35. Culler’s apparent shooting ability caused Y.R.
concern.
[11] On the morning of February 18, 2014, Culler “came down the stairs very
quickly[,]” approached Y.R.’s bedroom, opened her bedroom door, and started
yelling at her. Tr. p. 17. Culler indicated that he had not been able to get to
sleep because Y.R. had left her radio on all night at a volume level which he
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 6 of 19
thought was “too loud.” Tr. p. 17. When Y.R. indicated that she had “slept
fine” and that she thought the volume level was “low enough[,]” Culler slapped
Y.R. on the cheek and called her a brat. Tr. p. 17. A short time later, Y.R. left
the residence and went to school.
[12] Once she got to school, Y.R. told her friend about her encounter earlier that
morning. Y.R. also confided in her friend that Culler “had been molesting”
her. Tr. p. 17. Y.R. indicated that she “didn’t know what to do, so [she and
her friend] went to a teacher who taught us about abuse and so [sic] she took us
to the principal and I told him.” Tr. p. 17. The principal then informed police.
[13] Later that same day, Henry County Sheriff’s Detective Stacey Guffey spoke
with Y.R. at the school. After Y.R. gave an initial statement, Detective Guffey
determined it was necessary to obtain a recorded statement. Detective Guffey
transported Y.R. to the Henry County Sheriff’s Department and obtained a
recorded statement from Y.R. At some point, Detective Guffey observed that
Y.R. was having difficulty discussing the sensitive subject matter. Detective
Guffey explained that Y.R. requested that a female be present, and Detective
Guffey complied with this request in an attempt to make Y.R. feel more
comfortable. Y.R. informed Detective Guffey that Culler “had touched her
breasts, her buttocks and her vagina.” Tr. p. 107. Y.R. indicated that when
Culler would be touching her, “he would also be touching himself, his penis,
and masturbating.” Tr. p. 107. Y.R. further indicated that the touching would
continue until Culler ejaculated and that she knew when Culler had ejaculated
because “after he was done, she said he would kind of have a real heavy sigh”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 7 of 19
of relief. Tr. p. 107. Y.R. gave a subsequent, more detailed statement, to
Detective Guffey in November of 2014.
[14] On March 28, 2016, Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (“the State”)
charged Culler with three counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count
of Class C felony child molesting, three counts of Class D felony vicarious
sexual gratification, and one count of Class B misdemeanor battery. The case
proceeded to a jury trial on September 27 through 29, 2016.
[15] During trial, Y.R. detailed Culler’s actions towards her and indicated that she
did not report Culler’s actions sooner because she “felt like [she] was trying to
protect [her] family by keeping him from getting angry with them.” Tr. p. 35.
Y.R. indicated she was concerned about Culler’s apparent shooting ability
given the number of guns hidden throughout the family home. Y.R. further
indicated that she had observed Culler display violent tendencies when angry.
Specifically, Y.R. had observed Culler corner her mother upstairs and attempt
“to smack her.” Tr. p. 35. Y.R. also indicated that when Culler became angry
with her, he would throw things, call her names, or kick her.
[16] On cross-examination, Y.R. indicated that she did not join her sister at her
grandmother’s house because Culler “would pretty much throw a temper
tantrum.” Tr. p. 37. Culler would “complain to [Y.R.’s] mom that [she] didn’t
want to spend time with [him,]” would try to get Y.R. into trouble, and would
“get really agitated.” Tr. p. 37. Y.R. indicated that Culler “was calmer” if she
did not go to her grandmother’s house. Y.R. further indicated that she did not
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 8 of 19
get up and leave during an incident of inappropriate touching because “if [she]
had just left and … if [she] had just locked [her] door, [she] would get in trouble
for it later because [Culler] would tell [her] mom that [she] was being
disrespectful” and she “would get in trouble for it.” Tr. p. 38. Y.R. also
indicated that her mother would encourage her to spend family time with
Culler “because she didn’t know what was going on. She didn’t know why I
didn’t want to spend time with him.” Tr. p. 53.
[17] Y.R. admitted that before she reported the abuse, she was “sad because [she]
didn’t know how to get out of [her] situation.” Tr. p. 50. Upon reporting the
abuse, Y.R. felt ashamed, scared, and “[i]mmensely” nervous. Tr. p. 56. Y.R.
explained that the statement that she initially gave Detective Guffey on
February 18, 2014, was not as detailed as her subsequent statement because she
“wasn’t very focused that day. Being as nervous as I was, I was jittery and
babbling. I didn’t know how to explain everything, but once I had more time to
think about it and remember things, I was able to give more information.” Tr.
p. 56.
[18] Following the conclusion of the evidence, the jury found Culler guilty of three
counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child
molesting, and three counts of Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification.
The jury found Culler not guilty of the class B misdemeanor battery charge. On
October 25, 2016, the trial court sentenced Culler to an aggregate term of 110
years, with 108 executed in the DOC and two years suspended to probation.
This appeal follows.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 9 of 19
Discussion and Decision
[19] Culler contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain two of his three
convictions for Class A felony child molesting. Culler also contends that the
trial court committed fundamental error by allowing alleged vouching
testimony.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[20] Culler contends that the evidence is insufficient to sustain two of his three
convictions for Class A felony child molesting.
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a
conviction, appellate courts must consider only the probative
evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict. It is
the fact-finder’s role, not that of appellate courts, to assess
witness credibility and weigh the evidence to determine whether
it is sufficient to support a conviction. To preserve this structure,
when appellate courts are confronted with conflicting evidence,
they must consider it most favorably to the trial court’s ruling.
Appellate courts affirm the conviction unless no reasonable fact-
finder could find the elements of the crime proven beyond a
reasonable doubt. It is therefore not necessary that the evidence
overcome every reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The
evidence is sufficient if an inference may reasonably be drawn
from it to support the verdict.
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144, 146-47 (Ind. 2007) (citations, emphasis, and
quotations omitted). “In essence, we assess only whether the verdict could be
reached based on reasonable inferences that may be drawn from the evidence
presented.” Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227, 229 (Ind. 2012) (emphasis in
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 10 of 19
original). Upon review, appellate courts do not reweigh the evidence or assess
the credibility of the witnesses. Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 435 (Ind.
2002).
[21] In order to convict Culler of Class A felony child molesting, the State was
required to prove that Culler, a person at least twenty-one years of age, did
knowingly perform deviate sexual conduct with Y.R., a child under fourteen
years of age. Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1). At the time Culler committed the
instant offenses, “deviate sexual conduct” was defined as follows: “‘Deviate
sexual conduct’ means an act involving: (1) a sex organ of one (1) person and
the mouth or anus of another person; or (2) the penetration of the sex organ or
anus of a person by an object.” Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-94. We have previously
concluded that “a finger is an object for purposes of deviate sexual conduct
under the child molesting statute.” Hurley v. State, 560 N.E.2d 67, 69 (Ind. Ct.
App. 1990).
[22] In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Culler claims that the State only
presented evidence of one penetration of Y.R.’s vagina, and, as such, only
presented sufficient evidence to sustain one of his three convictions for Class A
felony child molesting. We are unpersuaded by Culler’s claim in this regard,
however, because the record explicitly contains evidence that Culler penetrated
Y.R.’s vagina with his finger on at least three separate occasions. Y.R.
specifically testified that Culler penetrated her vagina with his finger in March
of 2013, in the fall of 2013, and in January or February of 2014. The record
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 11 of 19
additionally demonstrates that during the relevant time periods, Y.R. was
thirteen years old.
[23] Y.R.’s testimony is sufficient to sustain Culler’s convictions. See Carter v. State,
754 N.E.2d 877, 880 (Ind. 2001) (providing that “[a] molested child’s
uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction”). Furthermore,
it is well-established that the jury, acting as the trier-of-fact, was free to believe
or disbelieve Y.R.’s testimony regarding the number of times Culler penetrated
her vagina with his fingers and to weigh said testimony accordingly. See
Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146, 1149 (Ind. 2004); McClendon v. State, 671
N.E.2d 486, 488 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996); Moore v. State, 637 N.E.2d 816, 822 (Ind.
Ct. App. 1994), trans. denied. Given Y.R.’s testimony that Culler penetrated her
vagina with his finger on at least three separate occasions, we conclude that the
evidence is sufficient to sustain all three of Culler’s convictions for Class A
felony child molestation. Culler’s claim to the contrary effectively amounts to
an invitation for this court to reweigh the evidence, which we will not do. See
Stewart, 768 N.E.2d at 435.
II. Admission of Alleged Vouching Testimony
[24] Culler also contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain testimony
which he claims constituted impermissible vouching testimony. Specifically,
Culler contends that the trial court erred in admitting certain statements made
by Cynthia and Detective Guffey. “The decision to admit or exclude evidence
at trial is squarely within a trial court’s discretion and we afford it great
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 12 of 19
deference on appeal.” VanPatten v. State, 986 N.E.2d 255, 260 (Ind. 2013)
(citing Carpenter v. State, 786 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. 2003)). “We will not
reverse such a decision, often made in the context of heated testimony and
argument, unless it is clearly contrary to the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances of the case or misinterprets the law.” Id. (citing Carpenter, 786
N.E.2d at 703).
[25] In arguing that the trial court erred in admitting the challenged testimony,
Culler acknowledges that because he did not object to the admission of the
challenged evidence at trial, he must prove on appeal that the admission of the
challenged evidence amounted to fundamental error. “Failure to object at trial
waives the issue for review unless fundamental error occurred.” Treadway v.
State, 924 N.E.2d 621, 633 (Ind. 2010).
The fundamental error doctrine provides a vehicle for the review
of error not properly preserved for appeal. In order to be
fundamental, the error must represent a blatant violation of basic
principles rendering the trial unfair to the defendant and thereby
depriving the defendant of fundamental due process. Pope v.
State, 737 N.E.2d 374, 380 (Ind. 2000). The error must be so
prejudicial to the defendant’s rights as to make a fair trial
impossible. Id. In considering whether a claimed error denied
the defendant a fair trial, we determine whether the resulting
harm or potential for harm is substantial. Id. Harm is not shown
by the fact that the defendant was ultimately convicted. Id.
Rather, harm is determined by whether the defendant’s right to a
fair trial was detrimentally affected by the denial of procedural
opportunities for the ascertainment of truth to which he would
have been entitled. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 13 of 19
Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169, 1178-79 (Ind. 2011). The fundamental error
exception is extremely narrow and is available only in “‘egregious
circumstances.’” Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (quoting
Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1608 (Ind. 2003)).
A. Cynthia’s Testimony
[26] Culler argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing
Cynthia to vouch for Y.R.’s credibility. The portion of Cynthia’s testimony at
issue reads as follows:
Q When you first heard Detective Guffey tell you about the
allegations, did you believe them?
A As a nurse of twenty-seven years, hearing these painful
allegations, my first response with the grieving process was my
life was shattered and I was in denial. It was very painful.
Q Did, at first, you tell Detective Guffey that you thought
“Y.R.” might be making these up?
A It was hard. Yes.
Q So you did, in fact, tell Detective Guffey that you were
unsure if she was being honest with him.
A Yes.
Q Okay, and then after you met with Detective Guffey, did
you talk to your daughter, “Y.R.”?
A I went to work that night because I needed some time to
think and I sent “Y.R.” home with her grandmother to separate
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 14 of 19
the situation until I could have time to figure it out and then I
came home the next morning from work and I told [Culler] I had
to go talk to “Y.R.”. I had to go talk to her. I love my daughter.
I had to go hear her side, too.
Q And you listened to what she had to say.
A Yes, I did.
Q And at that point, did you believe her or not?
A Yes, I believed her because of a very specific incident she
told me about.
Q And what was that incident?
A I believe, I am very private with my sexual life. I close the
doors and would never do anything around my children. When
my husband, when he usually touched me, touched my breasts or
whatever and he touched himself and ejaculated, he would
always go ahhhhh. She described that to me, detail by detail.
She knew every detail and there is no way, no way, she could
have known those details if it had not happened to her.
Tr. pp. 89-90.
[27] A parent’s statement that they believed their child has been found to constitute
impermissible vouching. See Bean v. State, 15 N.E.3d 12, 18 (Ind. Ct. App.
2014) (citing Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012)). However,
error in admitting this type of vouching testimony “is harmless ‘if the
conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying
the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 15 of 19
contributed to the conviction.’” Wilkes v. State, 7 N.E.3d 402, 406 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014) (quoting Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238).
[28] In this case, although it was error for the trial court to allow Cynthia to testify
that she believed Y.R., we cannot say that the admission of such testimony
amounted to fundamental error. In the challenged portion of Cynthia’s
testimony, Cynthia admitted that although she initially doubted whether Y.R.
was telling the truth, she eventually came to believe that Y.R. was telling the
truth because Y.R. accurately detailed the specific way that Culler expressed
himself when ejaculating and that there is no way that Y.R. could have done so
if she had not experienced for herself. Cynthia’s testimony came after Y.R. had
testified in detail about the abuse Culler subjected her to.
[29] Given the detailed and consistent nature of Y.R.’s testimony, we cannot say
that the briefly vouching portion of Cynthia’s testimony rose to the level where
it would affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings or deny Culler
due process. See Kelley v. State, 566 N.E.2d 591, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991)
(providing that a therapist’s brief statement that the therapist believed the child
victim was telling the truth did not amount to fundament error because it did
not rise to the level where it would affect the fairness or integrity of the judicial
proceedings or deny the defendant due process). As such, any error in
admitting such testimony was harmless. See Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1240
(finding no fundamental error in admission of vouching testimony from
multiple witnesses given the substantial independent evidence of defendant’s
guilt). Culler, therefore, has failed to demonstrate that any error committed by
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 16 of 19
the trial court with respect to Cynthia’s testimony amounted to fundamental
error.
B. Detective Guffey’s Testimony
[30] Culler also argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by allowing
Detective Guffey to vouch for Y.R.’s credibility. The portion of Detective
Guffey’s testimony at issue reads as follows:
Q Okay, and when you are interviewing somebody, what are
the tools you use in trying to determine whether somebody is
being honest with you or not?
A You know, some I [sic] rely on is body language and I,
personally, I’ll ask the same type of question, but I’ll ask it, you
know, different times in different ways to see if I’m actually
getting all the truth and all the information.
Q And was this a technique that you were trained in or
learned over time?
A Yes, sir.
Q And in those interview[s] with “Y.R.”, did you do that?
A Yes, sir, I did.
Q Okay, and did she ever answer any questions
inconsistently?
A Not that I can recall. I think everything was pretty well
consistent, especially the initial interview, from the first time to
the last time, the last interview.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 17 of 19
Tr. p. 110.
[31] We have previously found a detective’s testimony that the victim’s reports to be
consistent and that he told the defendant that he did not see a reason why the
victim would “would come out and lie about this stuff” to be indirect vouching
testimony. Wilkes, 7 N.E.3d at 402. However, as we noted above, error in
admitting vouching testimony “is harmless ‘if the conviction is supported by
substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is
no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the
conviction.’” Wilkes, 7 N.E.3d at 406 (quoting Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238).
[32] Just as was the case with regard to Cynthia’s testimony, given the detailed and
consistent nature of Y.R.’s testimony, we cannot say that the briefly vouching
portion of Detective Guffey’s testimony rose to the level where it would affect
the fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings or deny Culler due process.
See Kelley, 566 N.E.2d at 593 (providing that a therapist’s brief statement that
the therapist believed the child victim was telling the truth did not amount to
fundament error because it did not rise to the level where it would affect the
fairness or integrity of the judicial proceedings or deny the defendant due
process). As such, any error in admitting such testimony was harmless. See
Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1240 (finding no fundamental error in admission of
vouching testimony from multiple witnesses given the substantial independent
evidence of defendant’s guilt). Culler, therefore, has failed to demonstrate that
any error committed by the trial court with respect to Detective Guffey’s
testimony amounted to fundamental error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 18 of 19
Conclusion
[33] In sum, we conclude that (1) the evidence is sufficient to sustain all three of
Culler’s convictions for Class A felony child molesting and (2) any error in
admitting the challenged evidence did not amount to fundamental error.
Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.
[34] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed.
Bailey, J., and Robb, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 33A05-1611-CR-2702 | April 24, 2017 Page 19 of 19
William G. Culler v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
Combined Opinion