Stepdad who exposed self to teen loses indecency appeal

A northern Indiana man who exposed himself to his stepdaughter’s teenage friend has lost his appeal of his public indecency conviction and sentence, with the Indiana Court of Appeals finding sufficient evidence and the man’s criminal history supported the trial court’s decisions.

In Jason M. Morris v. State of Indiana, 18A-CR-1738, Morris was alone in a truck with his stepdaughter’s friend M.Mc. after picking her up for a sleepover in April 2016 when the 14-year-old girl asked Morris for cigarette. Morris responded by asking M.Mc. what she was “going to do for it,” then referenced an incident in which M.Mc. had accidentally seen his penis at a pool party.

Morris then asked the girl if she wanted to see his penis again, and despite her negative answer, Morris unzipped his pants and exposed himself. M.Mc. told Morris’ stepdaughter about the incident, who attempted to tell her mother, who accused M.Mc. of stealing cigarettes. Another family member also threatened to kill M.Mc.’s family if she said anything about the incident.

M.Mc. was distraught when she returned home, so her mother took her to a therapist and M.Mc. disclosed what had happened. The therapist called child protective services, and Morris was charged with Class A misdemeanor public indecency.

After initially being convicted in Goshen City Court and receiving a one-year suspended sentence, Morris sought a trial de novo in the Elkhart Superior Court. He was again convicted in a bench trial, during which M.Mc. testified, and he was sentenced to one year executed in the county jail, the maximum sentence possible.

On appeal, Morris argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction, but the Indiana Court of Appeals disagreed. Writing for the unanimous appellate panel, Judge Margret Robb rejected Morris’ argument that M.Mc.’s testimony was insufficient evidence to convict him under the incredible dubiosity rule. Specifically, Robb said there were other testifying witnesses, and M.Mc.’s testimony was not inconsistent.

“Moreover, M.Mc.’s testimony cannot be considered ‘inherently improbable’ because evidence presented at trial corroborated her testimony,” the judge said. “… Even absent any corroborating evidence of M.Mc.’s testimony, however, it is well settled that the uncorroborated testimony of a single witness can be sufficient to sustain a conviction on appeal, Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133, 135 (Ind. 2012), and Morris concedes this in his brief.”

The appellate court also rejected Morris’ arguments that the trial court abused its discretion in imposing a higher sentence than he received in city court, and that his maximum sentence was inappropriate. Regarding the first argument, Robb said the Jan. 1, 1998 Trial De Novo Rules “do not bar a court from imposing a greater sentence than an inferior court after retrial on appeal.”

Further, “Despite Morris’ history with our justice system and his previous felony conviction for a similar crime against a juvenile, he was not deterred from committing the current offense,” Robb said.

“The trial court sentenced Morris within the statutory range, a task within its discretion, and Morris has failed to persuade us that his sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and his character,” she said.