Matthew Hayko v. Indiana

At trial, Mr. Hayko proposed to call three witnesses to testify as to their opinions of his accuser’s untruthfulness under Indiana Evidence Rule 608(a). On appeal, the Court of Appeals reversed and ordered a new trial, finding that the trial court applied the wrong foundational requirements to his witnesses. On the State’s Petition to Transfer, the Supreme Court of Indiana agreed but found the error harmless. In a trial that came down entirely to the credibility of the accuser, the Court found that the jury would not have afforded the testimony of Mr. Hayko’s witnesses much weight. The harmless error doctrine was articulated by this Court in Kotteakos v. United States, 328 U.S. 750 (1946). The intent of the doctrine was to end the practice of reversing convictions on the basis of technical errors that likely had no effect on the outcome of the trial. Since this Court’s decision in Kotteakos, the harmless error doctrine has been expanded by appellate courts nationwide. The opinion by the Supreme Court of Indiana in this case demonstrates how the doctrine has now been expanded to allow appellate courts to take on roles traditionally reserved for juries. Indeed, the Court below is now using the harmless error doctrine to find facts, weigh evidence, and hypothesize on a jury’s likely verdict absent the trial court’s error, presenting the following question: Whether an appellate court can violate a defendant’s right to trial by jury under the Sixth Amendment by weighing evidence and judging the credibility of witnesses to decide the defendant’s guilt in the absence of a trial court’s error?