HARDISTER v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] Adam Hardister's stepdaughters disclosed as adults that he had abused them when they were children. He appeals his convictions of one count of Class C felony child molesting and two counts of Class D felony child seduction. Hardister challenges the trial court's evidentiary rulings. Concluding that he has failed to demonstrate error, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] In 2005, Hardister married Kawana Hardister, who had a son and two daughters from a prior relationship. We refer to her daughters as Victim 1 (“V1”) and Victim 2 (“V2”). V1 called Hardister “Dad” or “Daddy.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 46.

[3] Sometime between January 1, 2011, and April 11, 2013, when V1 was in middle school, she and Hardister were at home, playing video games in the living room. Everyone else was out of town. Hardister produced a bottle of an unidentified alcoholic beverage and encouraged V1 to drink shots of liquor as they played. He did not drink. V1 drank at least three shots of liquor, felt “relaxed,” and “dozed off” on a couch. Id. at 51. When V1 regained consciousness, she was laying on her back and still felt “daze[d] in a way.” Id. at 51. Her shorts and underwear had been pulled down, and her legs were spread open. Hardister was fondling V1's vagina. He asked her if she remembered anything, and she said “no,” id. at 52, but she did remember him fondling her. Hardister directed V1 to go upstairs. Next, he made her take a cold shower, while he watched. V1 told a close friend that Hardister had abused her, but she told no one else.

[4] Sometime between February 14, 2013, and June 30, 2014, when V2 was sixteen years old, she was being punished for undisclosed misconduct by being grounded and having her electronics taken away. One evening, Hardister approached her and said she would be released from punishment if she “beat him in the drinking game.” Id. at 71. V2's mother was not home, and her siblings were asleep. V2 accepted Hardister's offer, and they went to the living room, where V2 began playing a video game. Hardister produced a bottle of tequila, and they both drank while V2 continued playing. V2 had six to ten shots of tequila. She got sleepy and sat down. Hardister told her that if she wanted her electronics back, she “should just take off [her] clothes[.]” Id. at 74. V2 refused, but Hardister was insistent and repeated his demand several times. V2 eventually complied, standing up and taking off all of her clothes, because she was not “thinking clearly enough to understand” what was happening. Id.

[5] V2 wanted to sit down again because she felt dizzy and nauseous, but Hardister insisted that she remain standing. He told her “how nice [her] body was and how much he liked [her] breasts.” Id. at 75. V2 repeatedly said she needed to sit down because she felt nauseous and told him that his comments were “weird.” Id. Hardister approached her, touched her breasts, and inserted his fingers into her vagina. V2 removed his hands and went into a bathroom, where she stayed for several minutes. Next, she returned to the living room, and Hardister was gone. V2 picked up her clothes and went to her bedroom.

[6] The next day, Hardister asked her if she was feeling okay and whether she remembered what happened the previous night. V2 remembered what he did. She did not immediately tell anyone about Hardister's abuse because she was still processing it. She told V1 several years later, and V1 told her that Hardister had also abused her.

[7] V2 told her mother about Hardister's abuse when she was nineteen or twenty. Kawana kicked Hardister out of the house and divorced him.

[8] In 2021, V2 was at her aunt's home, talking about her life. V2 disclosed that Hardister had abused her and stated that he also may have molested V1. The aunt called V1, who confirmed Hardister had molested her.

[9] Later, V2 and V1 both visited their aunt. After further discussions, the aunt called the police. An officer took statements from V1 and V2. Later, a detective interviewed V1 and V2, who separately disclosed that Hardister had abused them.

[10] The State charged Hardister with six felonies, of which three are relevant here: Class C felony child molesting, involving V1; and two counts of Class D felony child seduction, both involving V2. A jury determined Hardister was guilty of the three counts. The trial court imposed a sentence, and this appeal followed.

Discussion and Decision

[11] Hardister argues the trial court erred in admitting certain evidence. In general, “[a] trial court has discretion regarding the admission of evidence and its decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion.” Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021). We reverse only if the trial court's ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and if the error affects a party's substantial rights. Id.

[12] Hardister has preserved for appellate review a challenge to only one piece of evidence: State's Exhibit 5, which is an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department booking sheet for him. It bears a photo of Hardister, along with personal information including his date of birth and physical description. The sheet is dated January 27, 2022, and says Hardister has been charged with “Sex Offenses.” Tr. Ex. Vol. p. 7. Hardister argues the document was unduly prejudicial, and the State could have given the jury the crucial information (his date of birth) using a different source.

[13] Booking photographs, also known as mug shots, are admissible if “(1) they are not unduly prejudicial and (2) they have substantial independent probative value.” Wisehart v. State, 693 N.E.2d 23, 47 (Ind. 1998). The element of undue prejudice arises from a “concern that jurors may infer a criminal history from the photographs.” Ratcliffe v. State, 553 N.E.2d 1208, 1210 (Ind. 1990). But “there is no jeopardy in showing a photograph” of a defendant who was arrested on the charge at issue. Coleman v. State, 546 N.E.2d 827, 831 (Ind. 1989).

[14] Here, the booking sheet had probative value because the State used it to prove Hardister's age, which is an element of the child seduction charges. See Ind. Code 35-42-4-7 (2012) (requiring that a person committing the offense of child seduction be at least eighteen years old). As for undue prejudice, a detective testified she had investigated the allegations against Hardister in January 2022, which was before the booking sheet was generated. It appears the booking sheet was generated for this case and was not unduly prejudicial. See Coleman, 546 N.E.2d at 831-32 (no error in admitting defendant's booking photo because it was taken at time of arrest in that case).

[15] In addition, after the trial court admitted the booking sheet into evidence, the court instructed the jury: “Ladies and gentlemen, this particular exhibit is being admitted solely for the purpose of establishing the Defendant's date of birth.” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 41. “A jury is presumed to have followed the trial court's instructions.” Barton v. State, 192 N.E.3d 970, 980 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022), trans. denied. The trial court's instruction to consider the document only for proof of Hardister's age eliminated any error.

[16] Hardister has three other claims of evidentiary error, but for each claim he either failed to object at trial or objected on grounds different from the grounds he seeks to raise on appeal. As a result, he has waived appellate review of the claims. See Jones v. State, 250 N.E.3d 1062, 1086 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (“A party's failure to object to an alleged trial error results in waiver of that claim on appeal.”), trans. denied; Ko v. State, 243 N.E.3d 1153, 1160 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (stating that objecting on one ground at trial and raising different issue on appeal “results in waiver of the issue on appeal.”), trans. denied.

[17] In an attempt to avoid waiver, Hardister argues the trial court's three evidentiary decisions, individually and collectively, are fundamentally erroneous. “Fundamental error is an error that makes a fair trial impossible or constitutes clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process presenting an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.” Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009). This exception is “extremely narrow” and encompasses only errors so blatant that the trial judge should have acted independently to correct the situation. Haberkorn v. State, 205 N.E.3d 253, 259-60 (Ind. Ct. App 2023) (quoting Durden v. State, 99 N.E.3d 645, 652 (Ind. 2018)). When addressing such a claim, we consider the record “in its entirety.” Lacey v. State, 670 N.E.2d 1299, 1303 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996).

[18] For each of his three remaining claims of evidentiary error, Hardister argues the trial court allowed exhibits or testimony that improperly vouched for V1 and V2's testimony. Vouching evidence “is an invasion of the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should place upon a witness's testimony.” Gutierrez v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1030, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012); see also Ind. Evid. R. 704(b) (barring witness from stating whether another witness “has testified truthfully”).

[19] Hardister challenges State's Exhibits 6 and 7, which are photographs of V1 and V2 with family members. While questioning V2, the prosecutor alleged the photographs were taken around the time Hardister committed his offenses. But when the prosecutor asked V2 to authenticate them, she initially said she was not sure when they were taken and then agreed with the prosecutor's representation of the years in which they were taken. Hardister claims the photos, along with the prosecutor's comments, impermissibly vouched for V1 and V2's testimony as to when Hardister committed his offenses. We disagree. V2's lukewarm agreement as to the timing of the photographs did not bolster her prior testimony, in which she described the timing of the abuse incident based on being in middle school instead of specifying a year. And the trial court instructed the jury that attorneys’ statements are not evidence.

[20] Next, Hardister challenges the prosecutor's questions to V1 at the end of her testimony:

Q Okay, [V1], just another question. You – is it comfortable for you to be here today?

A No.

Q Is it your choice to be here?

A Yes.

Q Okay. And you understand if you didn't want to be here, you didn't have to be?

A Yes.

Tr. Vol. 3, pp. 61-62. Hardister argues the prosecutor bolstered V1's credibility “by implying she wouldn't be there testifying unless she was telling the truth.” Appellant's Br. p. 14. We disagree. V1's statements that she wanted to testify despite being uncomfortable had a minimal impact on her own credibility. And, again, the jury was instructed that the prosecutor's questions and statements were not evidence.

[21] Finally, Hardister claims the trial court fundamentally erred in allowing the detective to testify about her investigation, how the prosecutor's office screens cases, and whether the detective sometimes undertakes further investigation after turning over a case to the prosecutor's office. He claims the detective's testimony implied that V1 and V2's testimony “was credible because police supervisors and prosecutors reviewed their case and approved its filing without requiring additional investigation.” Appellant's Br. p. 17.

[22] The Indiana Supreme Court has noted that course-of-investigation testimony “is of little value absent a direct challenge to the legitimacy of the investigation.” Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559, 565 (Ind. 2014). Even so, the detective in the current case was equivocal when asked if she spoke with the prosecutor about further inquiries, stating, “I don't think there was [any conversation.]” Tr. Vol. 3, p. 40. Thus, the detective did not bolster the victims’ testimony as Hardister claims. In addition, Hardister cross-examined the detective about her investigation, allowing the jury to assess her credibility. And the trial court instructed the jury that the mere filing of charges against Hardister was not evidence of his guilt.

[23] We consider Hardister's claims of fundamental error in the context of the totality of the evidence, which included V1 and V2's clear, unequivocal testimony describing Hardister's abusive acts. We also consider the trial court's jury instructions, which addressed many of Hardister's claims of error. In sum, we cannot conclude that any errors in the admission of the evidence discussed above, taken individually or collectively, were such blatant violations of basic and elementary principles of due process that the jury's verdict should be called into question. Accordingly, Hardister has failed to demonstrate fundamental error. See Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985, 992-93 (Ind. 2015) (trial court did not fundamentally err in allowing witness to testify about signs of victim coaching in child molest case, even if testimony vouched for victim; witness was cross-examined about testimony, and victim's testimony about abuse was consistent).

Conclusion

[24] For the reasons stated above, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

[25] Affirmed.

Shepard, Senior Judge.

May, J., and Pyle, J., concur.