ILNews

COA revises child molesting sentence

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals upheld a man's convictions of child molesting, but reduced his sentence because he can't be considered among the worst offenders to justify the maximum sentence.

In Paul L. Mishler v. State, No. 20A03-0712-CR-577, Paul Mishler appealed his convictions of two counts of molesting his girlfriend's grade-school age daughter and his 50-year aggregate sentence. Mishler argued his victim's pretrial statements and videotaped interview shouldn't have been admitted into trial because they were inadmissible under the Protected Person Statute and he didn't have the opportunity to confront the accuser. 

The Court of Appeals disagreed, finding the child's pretrial statements and videotaped interview did fall under the Protected Person Statute because nothing suggests the child was coached into giving her statements and she made the statements within hours after the allegations of the crime came to light, wrote Chief Judge John Baker.

Mishler's argument that he was denied his right to confront the victim fails because the victim testified at the Protected Person hearing, at Mishler's trial, and was available for cross-examination. The ruling in Crawford v. Washington, 124 S.Ct. 1354 (2004), only applies to a non-testifying witness' out-of-court testimonial statement, wrote the chief judge.

The appellate court found the sentence to be inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and Mishler's character. The sentencing range for a Class A felony is 20 to 50 years in prison, with the maximum sentence generally being reserved for the worst offenders. Mishler was sentenced to 50 years in prison on both Class A child molesting counts, with the sentences to run concurrently. However, given the fact he has a limited criminal history and the amount of time that has passed since his juvenile adjudication in 1991 for three acts that would be child molesting if committed by an adult, the Court of Appeals can't categorize Mishler as one of the worst offenders, wrote Chief Judge Baker. The appellate court remanded the case to the trial court to revise the sentence to 38 years on each count to run concurrently.

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. Thanks for this article. We live in Evansville, IN and are aware of how bad the child abuse is here. Can you please send us the statistics for here in Vanderburgh, County. Our web site is: www.ritualabusefree.org Thanks again

  2. This ruling has no application to Indiana. The tail end of the article is misleading where it states criminal penalties await those who refuse a test. This is false. An administrative license suspension is what awaits you. No more, no less.

  3. Yellow journalism much??? "The outcome underscores that the direction of U.S. immigration policy will be determined in large part by this fall's presidential election, a campaign in which immigration already has played an outsized role." OUTSIZED? by whose standards? Also this: "In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help immigrants a friendlier reception." Ah, also, did you forget an adjective at the *** marks ahead by any chance? Thinking of one that rhymes with bald eagle? " In either case, legal challenges to executive action under her administration would come to a court that would have a majority of Democratic-appointed justices and, in all likelihood, give efforts to help *** immigrants a friendlier reception."

  4. Definition of furnish. : to provide (a room or building) with furniture. : to supply or give (something) to someone or something. : to supply or give to (someone) something that is needed or wanted. Judge Kincaid: if furnish means provide, and the constitution says the provider in a uni is the township, how on earth are they seperated??

  5. I never filed a law suite. I had no money for a lawyer. In 2010 I presented for MRI/with contrast. The technician stuck my left arm three times with needle to inject dye. I was w/out O2 for two minutes, not breathing, no ambulance was called. I suffered an Embolism ,Myocardia infarction. Permanent memory loss, heart damage. After the event, I could not remember what I did five seconds earlier. I had no-one to help me. I lost my dental hygiene career, been homeless, etc.

ADVERTISEMENT