….
At trial, Satterfield objected to a detective’s characterization of the answers he gave during a police interview as “evasive.” … Detective Tobias Odom conducted the interview while Satterfield was recovering from his injuries at Wishard Hospital, and he video-recorded their conversation. The State played the entire video at trial. After the video ended, Detective Odom discussed Satterfield’s behavior during the interview:
STATE: How would you characterize the answers Mr. Satterfield was giving to the questions you were asking?
ODOM: At times he minimizes his involvement. Maximizes other things.
STATE: When you say he minimizes, what does that mean?
ODOM: We all tend to minimize our—our involvement at times.
STATE: We tend to—to play down the things that make us look bad?
ODOM: Correct.
STATE: And when you say, he maximized, what do you mean?
ODOM: Long answers. Going over the same thing he spoke about when you’re not really asking that question.
STATE: Those things which would—tends to create sympathy, or support a certain conclusion? . . . By maximizing, do [you] mean long, drawn-out answers about the things that we tend to—to—give us sympathy or support a beneficial conclusion?
ODOM: Could be. Or—or, just not answering the question at hand. You just move—keep moving over the same things over and over again.
STATE: In that sense, would you characterize the answers as evasive?
ODOM: Yes. Can be.
(Emphasis added.) The trial court admitted Detective Odom’s testimony over Satterfield’s objection as skilled witness testimony.
….
[W]e find Detective Odom’s testimony was neither a skilled-witness opinion (though that’s what the trial court called it), nor forbidden “human lie detector” testimony. Rather, we hold it admissible as lay opinion testimony—a helpful summary of observations any ordinary juror could have made while listening to Satterfield’s responses. We therefore affirm the trial court’s discretion on that alternative basis.
- A. Detective Odom’s Testimony Was Lay Opinion Testimony, Not Skilled Witness Testimony
Helpful opinions are not exclusive to experts or skilled witnesses. Any witness “not testifying as an expert”—whether an ordinary lay witness or a skilled witness—may testify “in the form of an opinion” if it is “(a) rationally based on the perception of the witness and (b) helpful to a clear understanding of the witness’s testimony or determination of a fact in issue.” Ind. Evidence Rule 701 (emphasis added). … And the witness’s opinion is “helpful” “if the testimony gives substance to facts, which were difficult to articulate.” McCutchan v. Blanck, 846 N.E.2d 256, 262 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).
….
… In this context, the term “evasive” was helpful as a summary of the content and manner of answering questions and nothing more. And he did not overstate his summary—the State was the only party to actually use the word “evasive,” and Detective Odom simply responded with, “Yes. Can be.” This was a “commonsense conclusion,” and “any lay witness might have observed” Satterfield’s behavior and reached the same opinion. Id. at 1279. If anything, Detective Odom’s insight was simply helpful—cogently distilling the inconsistency of Satterfield’s answers to a single word, and thereby “giv[ing] substance to facts, which were difficult to articulate.” McCutchan, 846 N.E.2d at 262. But helpful though it was, the testimony was still the fruit of lay observation, not specialized knowledge. The trial court, therefore, did misidentify Detective Odom’s testimony as skilled witness testimony. But because we find it admissible as lay opinion testimony, we affirm the trial court’s decision on that alternative basis. Clark, 808 N.E.2d at 1188.
….
- B. Detective Odom’s Testimony Was Not “Human Lie Detector” Testimony.
This testimony offered by Detective Odom was also not “human lie detector” testimony when understood in the context of his entire testimony and the video itself. No witness may “testify to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal case [or] . . . whether a witness has testified truthfully.” Evid. R. 704(b). Taken alone, the word “evasive” can mean “tending or seeking to evade; not straightforward; tricky. . . ,” Webster’s New World Dictionary (Third College Edition) 470 (1998), and “evade” can mean “to be deceitful or clever in avoiding or escaping something.” Id. These definitions could imply an intent to deceive. But “evasive” can also mean “equivocal,” without a mendacious intent. Id. And taken in the context of Detective Odom’s entire testimony and the video of the interview, Detective Odom’s summary of Satterfield’s mode of answering questions—namely, minimizing incriminating information, and maximizing harmless information—was not a statement of his veracity. We acknowledge the trial court mischaracterized Detective Odom’s testimony as skilled witness testimony. But the trial court made no comment about Detective Odom’s ability to identify untruthfulness—as the trial court in Tolliver had mistakenly done. Thus, Detective Odom did not serve as a “human lie detector.” [Footnote omitted.]
In sum, Detective Odom was not an unqualified skilled witness, nor was his testimony inadmissible commentary on Satterfield’s truthfulness. Rather, in the context of Detective Odom’s entire testimony and in light of our own observations of the video itself, the testimony was admissible as a helpful, “commonsense conclusion” about Satterfield’s manner of answering questions during an interview. Because we find that the trial court did not abuse its discretion, we need not conduct harmless error review.
….