ILNews

COA adjusts sentence for child molestation

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a defendant's convictions of child molestation and child exploitation, but it adjusted his sentence after finding a mathematical error by the trial court.

In Roy Bennett v. State of Indiana, No. 79A05-0705-CR-240, Bennett appealed his convictions and sentence for two counts of Class D felony child exploitation and three counts of Class C felony child molestation. Bennett's adopted daughter accused him of sexually molesting her and police searched Bennett's home, finding several computer discs containing pornographic movies. His daughter later recanted her story but then renewed her allegations. A week before his trial was to begin, Bennett fled to Mississippi and assumed a new identity. He was later found and returned to Indiana for trial.

On appeal, Bennett argued the trial court erred by allowing evidence of his failure to appear for trial, the investigation to locate him, and the discovery of his residing in Mississippi under an assumed identity. He cited Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2001) to support his argument that evidence should be excluded because he didn't flee immediately from the scene of the crime or to avoid immediate apprehension.

Bennett is wrong in his understanding of Dill, and the Indiana Supreme Court held in the decision that flight and its related conduct may be considered by a jury in determining a defendant's guilt, wrote Senior Judge George Hoffman.

Eric Johnson of the Mississippi Bureau of Investigation was allowed to testify during trial about Bennett's activities in Mississippi. Despite Bennett's argument the evidence of his flight and assumed identity isn't allowed under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), it is admissible because it provides evidence of the charged offenses. Evidence simply to show a person commits crimes, but not the specific crimes for which the defendant is on trial, is to be excluded under 404(b).

Bennett also argued his three convictions of felony child molestation violated the double jeopardy provisions of the Indiana Constitution. He claimed evidence used to support one count of child molestation was used by the jury to convict him of another count. His daughter testified about a specific molestation incident that occurred in the evening of April 2, 2003, which was charged as Count XX; Count V alleged that he committed fondling or touching against his daughter sometime between 1998 and 2003, on which he the jury convicted him. The time frame of Count XX falls within the same time frame of Count V, so Bennett failed to prove the jury used the same evidentiary facts to establish the essential elements of more than one offense, wrote Senior Judge Hoffman.

The appellate court affirmed Bennett's sentence wasn't inappropriate and adjusted it, finding the trial court incorrectly tallied Bennett's aggregate sentence. The trial court sentenced him to a term of two years for each child exploitation conviction, a term of seven years for two of the child molestation convictions, and a term of six years for the third child molestation conviction; the trial court ordered he serve 20 years executed with five years suspended to probation, but his sentence should be 20 years executed with four years suspended to probation, wrote Senior Judge Hoffman.
ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  2. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  3. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  4. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

  5. Dear Fan, let me help you correct the title to your post. "ACLU is [Left] most of the time" will render it accurate. Just google it if you doubt that I am, err, "right" about this: "By the mid-1930s, Roger Nash Baldwin had carved out a well-established reputation as America’s foremost civil libertarian. He was, at the same time, one of the nation’s leading figures in left-of-center circles. Founder and long time director of the American Civil Liberties Union, Baldwin was a firm Popular Fronter who believed that forces on the left side of the political spectrum should unite to ward off the threat posed by right-wing aggressors and to advance progressive causes. Baldwin’s expansive civil liberties perspective, coupled with his determined belief in the need for sweeping socioeconomic change, sometimes resulted in contradictory and controversial pronouncements. That made him something of a lightning rod for those who painted the ACLU with a red brush." http://www.harvardsquarelibrary.org/biographies/roger-baldwin-2/ "[George Soros underwrites the ACLU' which It supports open borders, has rushed to the defense of suspected terrorists and their abettors, and appointed former New Left terrorist Bernardine Dohrn to its Advisory Board." http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/viewSubCategory.asp?id=1237 "The creation of non-profit law firms ushered in an era of progressive public interest firms modeled after already established like the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("NAACP") and the American Civil Liberties Union ("ACLU") to advance progressive causes from the environmental protection to consumer advocacy." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cause_lawyering

ADVERTISEMENT