Altice, J.
A jury found Jessie Watson guilty of Level 1 felony child molesting, Level 4 felony child molesting, and Level 4 felony incest, when the evidence established that he had committed various acts of child molesting against his eleven-year-old daughter, T.R. Watson appeals his convictions, claiming that the trial court erred in excluding evidence of various internet searches, thus violating his right to cross examine a witness. Watson also alleges that the trial court improperly permitted T.R. to testify that she was telling the truth about statements that she made to a forensic interviewer and an examining nurse after the incidents. As a result, Watson contends that the State improperly vouched for T.R.’s testimony and bolstered the testimony of the nurse and interviewer. We affirm.
…
The State charged Watson with two counts of felony child molesting, and one count of incest, alleging that the offenses had occurred “[s]ometime during the period of time between the 20th day of July, 2016, and the 25th day of October, 2016[.]” Appellant’s Appendix at 17. Watson requested a jury trial and the day before trial, Watson’s defense counsel informed the trial court that Watson wished to offer evidence concerning various internet searches of a sexual nature that were made on a tablet between July 29, 2016, and October 12, 2016. These searches included “sex games,” “daddy sleeping with daughter,” and “f_ _ king games.” Transcript Vol. III at 33-34. In response, the State argued that the evidence was inadmissible under Indiana Evid. Rule 412 because the evidence that Watson sought to admit involved T.R.’s prior sexual behavior and/or sexual predisposition. The State also asserted that Watson had failed to provide proper notice under Indiana Evid. Rule 403(c) that he intended to offer such evidence, and it was not established who had conducted the internet searches. The trial court agreed that the matter should have been addressed prior to trial and ruled the evidence inadmissible under Evid. R. 403 and 412. The trial judge commented that it might reconsider the issue later at trial.
At the trial that commenced on October 16, 2018, Watson made an offer of proof, indicating that he would have asked the investigating detective about information from a report that referred to “a history of someone engaging in a search on the tablet for pornographic sites such as ‘daddy sleeping with daughter’ and ‘a father abusing a daughter.’” Transcript Vol. III at 33; Defendant’s Exhibit A. The evidence established that Watson and T.R. shared the tablet and both had used it on different occasions. The trial court affirmed its prior ruling and held the evidence inadmissible.
I. Exclusion of Evidence
Watson argues that the trial court abused its discretion in excluding evidence of the tablet internet searches. Watson contends that the exclusion of this evidence and the fact that he was not able to thoroughly question the investigating detective about those searches violated his right of cross-examination under the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution.
…
In cases involving alleged sexual misconduct, evidence offered to prove that a victim or witness engaged in other sexual behavior or evidence offered to prove a victim’s or witness’s sexual predisposition is generally not admissible under Indiana Evid. R. 412, the Rape Shield Act.
…
Watson failed to establish who conducted the internet searches on the tablet. This fact alone justified the exclusion of the evidence, as it was mere speculation that T.R. possessed the tablet when the searches were conducted. Thus, we cannot say that the evidence was relevant or that its probative value outweighed its prejudicial effect. See Williams v. State, 681 N.E.2d 195, 201 (Ind. 1997) (finding no error in excluding evidence that would shift the jury’s attention away from the defendant’s actions to the past acts of the victim). Thus, it has not been established that exclusion of the tablet internet search evidence violated Watson’s right to cross-examine witnesses under the Sixth Amendment.
Watson also asserts that the exclusion of this evidence violated his right to cross-examine witnesses under Article 1, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution, which provides that “[I]n all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall have the right . . . to meet the witnesses face to face[.]”
…
In addition to the fact that the identity of the individual who performed the searches on the tablet was not established, there is no showing that Watson was deprived of any face-to-face meetings with the State’s witnesses as they presented their testimony at trial. For these reasons, we cannot say that the trial court’s exclusion of the searches violated Watson’s right to “fully and effectively probe and challenge those witnesses during trial before the trier of fact through cross-examination” under the Indiana Constitution. See id.
….
Judgment affirmed.
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.