972 N.E.2d 404
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Stetler was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and admitted habitual offender status.
- The victims were two girls, ages nine (S.G.L.) and seven (K.H.), who attended a nearby campfire at S.G.L.’s home.
- Stetler pulled down K.H.’s pants, licked her private, and later touched S.G.L.’s genital area with his hand; both incidences occurred in and around the girls’ homes.
- Both girls reported the conduct to a neighbor, police, and were examined at a Child Advocacy Center with a Sexual Assault Nurse Examiner.
- Stetler received consecutive thirty-year sentences for each conviction, plus a thirty-year habitual offender enhancement, totaling ninety years.
- The Court affirmed, finding sufficient evidence of penetration and not inappropriate given the offenses and offender history.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient evidence of penetration? | Stetler argues no penetration occurred. | Stetler contends the evidence shows only external touching. | Evidence supports penetration; clitoral hood internal structure acknowledged. |
| Is the ninety-year aggregate sentence appropriate? | Stetler asserts the sentence is excessive given isolation of incidents and lack of harm. | Stetler emphasizes extensive priors, ongoing parole violations, and opportunity abuse of two victims. | Sentence not inappropriate considering offense nature and offender character; credit-restricted status noted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dinger v. State, 540 N.E.2d 39 (Ind. 1989) (any penetration sufficient to prove intercourse, here used to support penetrative finding)
- Spurlock v. State, 675 N.E.2d 312 (Ind. 1996) (detailed anatomical descriptions unnecessary; considering victim’s vocabulary in context)
- Short v. State, 564 N.E.2d 553 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (inferential approach to genital touching consistent with verdicts in limited-vocabulary cases)
- Sanchez v. State, 938 N.E.2d 720 (Ind. 2010) (revised enhanced/consecutive sentences where offenses were isolated and record limited)
- Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852 (Ind. 2003) (consecutive sentences justified when same offense against two victims)
- Boggs v. State, 928 N.E.2d 855 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (standard of review for sufficiency of evidence; conflict resolved in favor of verdict)