Matthew Hayko v. State of Indiana

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that opinion testimony attacking a witness’s character for untruthfulness under Indiana Evidence Rule 608(a) requires a foundation showing that the opinion is rationally based on the witness’s personal knowledge and would be helpful to the trier of fact. The trial court applied reputation-testimony requirements and therefore erred by excluding testimony from three relatives about the victim’s untruthfulness, but the error was harmless because other evidence impeached the victim and also undermined the defendant’s credibility. The court affirmed the conviction and sentence.