ILNews

Court upholds former DCS worker’s child molesting convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the 24-year sentence imposed on a former Hamilton County Department of Child Services’ case manager found guilty of molesting his cousin’s son.

Cory A. Heinzman raised several issues on appeal: whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for discharge, whether it abused its discretion in admitting testimony that he claims vouched for the credibility of the victim and a letter written by the victim, and whether his convictions of three counts of Class C felony child molesting constitute double jeopardy. He also challenged his sentence.

In addition to being convicted of molesting his cousin’s son in 2002 and 2003 when the boy was 10 and 11, Heinzman pleaded guilty to Class D felony sexual battery in a separate case that involved the boy’s younger brother.

The trial court did not err in denying Heinzman’s motion for discharge because he waived his right to a speedy trial under Criminal Rule 4(C) by not objecting when the trial court set a trial date outside the one-year time limit, the judges found in Cory Heinzman v. State of Indiana, 29A02-1012-CR-1327. Because Heinzman was responsible for some delay in the trial, did not timely assert his right to a speedy trial, and has failed to demonstrate resulting prejudice, the delay in his trial didn’t violate his constitutional right to a speedy trial.

The judges ruled the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting evidence of the report showing Heinzman’s abuse had been “substantiated” because this testimony didn’t run afoul of Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b), wrote Judge Paul Mathias. The letter written by the victim was admissible under an exception to the hearsay rule and was cumulative of the boy’s testimony.

Heinzman’s convictions of child molesting don’t constitute double jeopardy and the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in sentencing him.

 

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. Bob Leonard killed two people named Jennifer and Dion Longworth. There were no Smiths involved.

  2. Being on this journey from the beginning has convinced me the justice system really doesn't care about the welfare of the child. The trial court judge knew the child belonged with the mother. The father having total disregard for the rules of the court. Not only did this cost the mother and child valuable time together but thousands in legal fees. When the child was with the father the mother paid her child support. When the child was finally with the right parent somehow the father got away without having to pay one penny of child support. He had to be in control. Since he withheld all information regarding the child's welfare he put her in harms way. Mother took the child to the doctor when she got sick and was totally embarrassed she knew nothing regarding the medical information especially the allergies, The mother texted the father (from the doctors office) and he replied call his attorney. To me this doesn't seem like a concerned father. Seeing the child upset when she had to go back to the father. What upset me the most was finding out the child sleeps with him. Sometimes in the nude. Maybe I don't understand all the rules of the law but I thought this was also morally wrong. A concerned parent would allow the child to finish the school year. Say goodbye to her friends. It saddens me to know the child will not have contact with the sisters, aunts, uncles and the 87 year old grandfather. He didn't allow it before. Only the mother is allowed to talk to the child. I don't think now will be any different. I hope the decision the courts made would've been the same one if this was a member of their family. Someday this child will end up in therapy if allowed to remain with the father.

  3. Ok attorney Straw ... if that be a good idea ... And I am not saying it is ... but if it were ... would that be ripe prior to her suffering an embarrassing remand from the Seventh? Seems more than a tad premature here soldier. One putting on the armor should not boast liked one taking it off.

  4. The judge thinks that she is so cute to deny jurisdiction, but without jurisdiction, she loses her immunity. She did not give me any due process hearing or any discovery, like the Middlesex case provided for that lawyer. Because she has refused to protect me and she has no immunity because she rejected jurisdiction, I am now suing her in her district.

  5. Sam Bradbury was never a resident of Lafayette he lived in rural Tippecanoe County, Thats an error.

ADVERTISEMENT