Andres Solis Guerra v. State of Indiana, 25A-CR-03231

Background

The State charged Guerra and his girlfriend Alvarado with molesting Guerra’s daughter, K.G., based on abuse occurring when she was about 11 to 13 years old. 1
K.G. disclosed the abuse to her teacher in January 2017, and a forensic interview and police interview followed. 2
Before trial, the State moved to exclude evidence of a 2015 physical altercation between K.G. and Alvarado, Alvarado’s battery case, and the resulting no-contact order. 3
The trial court largely granted the motion, but allowed limited questioning about K.G.’s relationship with Alvarado and her prior failure to report abuse to police. 4
The jury convicted Guerra of two counts of child molestation, and the court imposed consecutive forty-year sentences. 5
On appeal, Guerra challenged the evidentiary ruling, sufficiency, double jeopardy, and sentencing discretion. 6

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was evidence of Alvarado’s battery case admissible? 7	Guerra said it showed K.G.’s motive to fabricate and delayed reporting.	The State said it was irrelevant, prejudicial, and confusing.	No; exclusion was within discretion and any relevance was minimal. 8
Was the evidence sufficient as to time of offenses? 9	Guerra said the State lacked specific dates.	The State relied on K.G.’s years-long abuse testimony.	Yes; exact dates were unnecessary and K.G.’s testimony was sufficient. 10
Did two child-molesting convictions violate double jeopardy? 11	Guerra claimed the acts were one continuous offense.	The State said the issue was waived and involved separate acts.	Waived; his argument was undeveloped and altered on reply. 12
Did the court err by not mitigating for no criminal history? 13	Guerra said his lack of record should mitigate sentence.	The State said repeated hidden abuse outweighed any mitigation.	No; omission was not an abuse of discretion. 14

Key Cases Cited

Russell v. State, 234 N.E.3d 829 (Ind. 2024) (trial-court evidentiary and sentencing discretion standards 15)
Jones v. State, 258 N.E.3d 1063 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (evidentiary rulings reversed only when clearly against the logic and effect of the facts 16)
Crossland v. State, 256 N.E.3d 517 (Ind. 2025) (defendants have a meaningful opportunity to present a complete defense 17)
Koenig v. State, 933 N.E.2d 1271 (Ind. 2010) (defendants have a related right to cross-examine witnesses 18)
Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 1998) (defendant may present his own version of the facts 19)
Marley v. State, 747 N.E.2d 1123 (Ind. 2001) (the right to present a defense is important but not absolute 20)
Schnitzmeyer v. State, 168 N.E.3d 1041 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (Rule 403 favors admissibility unless unfair prejudice substantially outweighs probative value 21)
Snow v. State, 77 N.E.3d 173 (Ind. 2017) (appellate courts do not second-guess reasonable Rule 403 rulings 22)
Hancz-Barron v. State, 235 N.E.3d 1237 (Ind. 2024) (sufficiency review defers to the fact-finder and asks whether substantial evidence supports each element 23)
Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 2011) (exact time and date are usually not material in child molesting cases 24)
Keister v. State, 203 N.E.3d 548 (Ind. Ct. App. 2023) (exact dates matter mainly when age at offense is near a felony-class boundary 25)
Moyers v. State, 277 N.E.3d 33 (Ind. 2026) (multiple convictions may arise from multiple discrete acts in one trial 26)
White v. State, 264 N.E.3d 99 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (substantive double jeopardy does not bar multiple charges for discrete acts under the same statute 27)
Williams v. State, 997 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (lack of criminal history is not always a significant mitigator in child molesting cases 28)
Ackerman v. State, 51 N.E.3d 171 (Ind. 2016) (resentencing is required only if the same sentence would not have been imposed 29)
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (resentencing standard for omitted mitigators 30)
McCoy v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1259 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (position of trust is a valid aggravator in child molesting sentencing 31)