ILNews

Judges affirm 90-year sentence for child molester

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found that a child molesting victim’s statement to her grandmother – as testified by the grandmother at trial – should not have been admitted. But, that hearsay reference did not deprive the defendant of a fair trial.

Jarrad L. Mastin was convicted of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class B felony child molesting and sentenced to 90 years for molesting his daughter beginning when she was 4 years old. The molestations came to light when the victim’s grandmother took her to the hospital because K.M. was peeing blood and in severe pain when she tried to use the bathroom. Tests showed she had Type II genital herpes. Mastin confessed to having engaged in sexual conduct with his daughter.

He appealed, claiming the admission of a statement by K.M. as told to her grandmother was hearsay; there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support the convictions based upon sexual intercourse; and his sentence is inappropriate.

In Jarrad L. Mastin v. State of Indiana, No. 18A02-1109-CR-890, the judges agreed that the testimony by the grandmother that K.M. said to her that her daddy played “secret games” with her should not have been allowed. K.M. did not testify at the trial. But Mastin didn’t contemporaneously object at trial, and he claimed on appeal the admission was a fundamental error. The judges found it did not rise to that level and other evidence supported Mastin’s convictions.

Mastin also argued that there wasn’t any evidence of penetration to support his Class B felony convictions, but the statute only requires penetration by a male sex organ of the female sex organ. That can include penetration of external genitalia, wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey. There is sufficient evidence to conclude that Mastin’s sex organ penetrated his daughter’s sex organ.

The judges also upheld the 90-year sentence and found that his claim of prosecutorial misconduct is waived.

 

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. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  2. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  3. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  4. I totally agree with John Smith.

  5. An idea that would harm the public good which is protected by licensing. Might as well abolish doctor and health care professions licensing too. Ridiculous. Unrealistic. Would open the floodgates of mischief and abuse. Even veteranarians are licensed. How has deregulation served the public good in banking, for example? Enough ideology already!

ADVERTISEMENT