Court rules on parental discipline case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has held that a woman’s prior conviction for battering her daughter in a way similar to a current case is admissible pursuant to the state’s rules of evidence.

In Lavern Ceaser v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1106-CR-580, the appellate court affirmed several decisions by Marion Superior Master Commissioner Teresa A. Hall in a case involving a mother’s Class D felony battery conviction against her daughter.

The mother, Lavern Ceaser, was accused of battering her 9-year-old daughter by striking her on the arms, back, legs and bottom for as long as 15 minutes and causing the girl to cry and scream in pain. The girl showed a teacher at school the welts the following day and that teacher notified the local Department of Child Services, leading to this case. Ceaser had a previous Class A misdemeanor battery on a child conviction from 2006 involving the same child, who was then 7 years old. The daughter was removed from her mother’s care but then returned to Ceaser in 2008 just several months before this incident occurred.

After the state charged Ceaser with felony battery on a child and trial began, prosecutors wanted to introduce the prior conviction. The trial court ruled that the state couldn’t use the evidence in its case-in-chief but could use the evidence for rebuttal purposes if Ceaser relied on the parental privilege defense.

The mother testified at trial and said she’d tried various ways of disciplining her daughter unsuccessfully because the girl had apparently lied about homework and not keeping her bedroom clean. She said that the 2006 conduct may not have been reasonable, but the felt the 2008 discipline was reasonable. The jury convicted Ceaser, who received a 545-day sentence, with all of the time suspended to probation.

On appeal, Ceaser argued the trial court erred by allowing the prior conviction as evidence, that the court wrongly denied her motion to dismiss, and that evidence was insufficient to rebut her claim of parental privilege.

Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote the 17-page appellate opinion and acknowledged the potential for unfair prejudice was tangible, but the trial court properly limited the evidence and weighed the probative value versus the threat of prejudice.

Specifically, the appellate judges found that the prior conviction was admissible under the intent and lack of accident or mistake exceptions to Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b).

The court also concluded that the trial court properly denied Ceaser’s motion to dismiss and that the trial evidence was sufficient to rebut her claim of parental privilege. Vaidik wrote that Ceaser’s appellate arguments attempt to minimize the harm to her daughter and insist that the mother’s behavior was not excessive but justified. The court described that as an invitation to reweigh the evidence, and it cannot do that.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit