Alric Bolt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
20A05-1602-PC-383
| Ind. Ct. App. | Mar 3, 2017Background
- In July 2007, Alric Bolt (age 40) allegedly compelled his girlfriend’s 11‑year‑old daughter, M.W., to shower with him and touched her breasts, genital area, and inserted a finger into her labia; he was charged with two Class C counts and one Class A count of child molesting.
- Following a three‑day jury trial in May 2009, Bolt was convicted on all counts and sentenced to concurrent terms, including 35 years for the Class A count.
- Bolt’s direct appeal challenged admission of photographs and alleged prosecutorial misconduct; convictions were affirmed and transfer was denied.
- Bolt filed a pro se post‑conviction petition (amended with counsel); after an evidentiary hearing, the post‑conviction court denied relief, and Bolt appealed alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- Bolt’s ineffective‑assistance claims focused on three discrete errors by trial counsel: (1) failing to impeach M.W. with alleged prior inconsistent statements; (2) failing to object to or tender a jury instruction that omitted an explicit mens rea element; and (3) failing to properly prevent or exclude M.W.’s aunt’s testimonial statements that M.W. had been molested.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bolt) | Defendant's Argument (State / Trial Counsel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Failure to impeach M.W. with prior inconsistent statements | Bolt: counsel did not confront M.W. about deposition statements showing inconsistencies (location of touching; timeline) | Counsel reasonably chose not to press minor timeline/wording differences; deposition and trial testimony were substantially consistent; strategic decisions allowed | No ineffective assistance — omissions were reasonable and not prejudicial |
| Failure to challenge jury instruction on mens rea | Bolt: counsel should have proffered/tendered instruction explicitly stating “knowingly or intentionally” as mens rea for child molesting | Instructions viewed as a whole, included a definition of “knowingly,” and the amended information alleged Bolt acted knowingly; counsel’s acquiescence was reasonable | No ineffective assistance — jury adequately informed of mens rea requirement |
| Failure to limit/strike aunt’s testimony (hearsay / course of investigation / prior consistent statement) | Bolt: aunt’s statements that M.W. said she was "molested" and recounted details were prejudicial and improperly admitted under course‑of‑investigation and 801(d) prior consistent statement rules | Trial court limited testimony during case‑in‑chief; aunt later clarified M.W. did not use the word “molested”; mother’s defense testimony implied fabrication, supporting admission of prior consistent statements; counsel objected and litigated hearsay issues | No ineffective assistance — objections were made, relevance and non‑hearsay purposes were established, and admission was within reasonable professional judgment |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (U.S. 1984) (two‑part standard for ineffective assistance: deficient performance and prejudice)
- Louallen v. State, 778 N.E.2d 794 (Ind. 2002) (mens rea is an element of child molesting; instructions read as a whole may supply mens rea)
- Cardwell v. State, 516 N.E.2d 1083 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (instructions tracking statutory language can inform jury of mens rea when read with definitions and as a whole)
- Blount v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559 (Ind. 2014) (course‑of‑investigation testimony is limited and may be prejudicial if used as substantive evidence)