Daniel Lee Pierce v. State of Indiana, 29 N.E.3d 1258

Background

Daniel Pierce, grandfather, was charged with multiple counts of child molesting and solicitation based on allegations from four related minor female victims (ages ranged pre- to early-teens); offenses included touching, oral contact, exposure to pornography, and bathing with victims.
Investigation began after a forensic interview of K.P.; detectives identified additional victims (V.H., B.H., A.R.) and seized Pierce’s computers, which forensic analysis showed visits to pornographic sites with themes of young girls.
At trial Pierce was convicted on multiple counts (one count dismissed by the State at close of evidence; one count acquitted); aggregate sentence initially 38 years with some concurrent and some consecutive terms; trial court found Pierce a credit-restricted felon.
Pierce moved to sever counts by victim; trial court denied the motion. A divided Court of Appeals reversed and ordered new separate trials; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether joinder was permissible under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-9(a)(2) (series of connected acts) versus solely § 35-34-1-9(a)(1) (same or similar character), (2) evidentiary rulings on impeachment/offers of proof and computer pornography evidence, (3) credit-restricted felon status, and (4) improper suspension of part of a Class A sentence.

Issues

Issue	State's Argument	Pierce's Argument	Held
Whether defendant was entitled to severance of charges by victim under Ind. Code § 35-34-1-11(a)	Offenses were connected by common victims, method, motive, and overlapping investigation; joinder under § 35-34-1-9(a)(2) permitted	Joinder was solely because offenses were of same or similar character; thus severance was mandatory	Denied severance: offenses were sufficiently connected under § 35-34-1-9(a)(2), so no absolute right to severance.
Whether exclusion of an offer of proof/impeachment regarding B.H. was reversible error	Any limitation was harmless; jury heard inconsistent statements and credibility was challenged at trial	Trial court improperly denied opportunity to make offer of proof and limited confrontation	Any error harmless: jury already had grounds to assess B.H.’s credibility; conviction stands.
Admissibility of computer forensic evidence and pornographic domain names (Rules 404(b), 702)	Evidence was admissible to corroborate victims’ testimony about exposure to pornography; forensic methods were reliable	Admission was improper propensity evidence and forensic report unreliable	Admissible: forensic evidence and domain names corroborated victim testimony and were based on reliable methods; any timing disputes go to weight.
Whether Pierce is a credit-restricted felon and whether trial court erred in suspending part of Class A sentence	Trial court properly found V.H. was under 12 at time of offense; sentencing statute prohibits suspension beyond 30 years for such offenders	Jury ambiguity about time of offense means court cannot find victim under 12; suspension was proper	Court: trial court (not jury) determines credit-restricted status using trial/sentencing evidence; finding supported; suspension violated statute — remand for resentencing on Count 9.

Key Cases Cited

Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 1997) (common modus operandi and motive can link crimes across different victims)
Craig v. State, 730 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. 2000) (strikingly similar molestation method across victims supported joinder under connected-acts theory)
Booker v. State, 790 N.E.2d 491 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (defendant’s caretaking role linked molestation offenses of multiple child victims)
Heinzman v. State, 895 N.E.2d 716 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse of position as caseworker connected offenses against multiple youths)
Maymon v. State, 870 N.E.2d 523 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (examples where similar-character offenses were factually distinct and required severance)
Blanchard v. State, 802 N.E.2d 14 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (overlapping investigation and relationship may link otherwise different offenses)