Dominique D. Randolph v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 45A04-1512-CR-2358

On Dec. 8, 2014, Thomas O’Neill was robbed at gunpoint by multiple men; he identified Dominique Randolph as the man with the gun. Sixty dollars was taken; Randolph was found hiding in the getaway SUV.
Randolph was tried and convicted of Level 3 felony armed robbery for the O’Neill incident; previously convicted for a separate Ruiz robbery the same night. Sentenced to 10 years for the O’Neill robbery (another court had given 9 years, with 4 years suspended, for the Ruiz robbery).
At trial O’Neill was cross-examined about inconsistencies, mental health, and medications; on redirect he testified his wife had died of brain cancer about six weeks earlier.
Randolph objected to that testimony as outside redirect scope and prejudicial; the trial court overruled and admitted it. Randolph appealed his conviction and sentence.
Appellate court reviewed (1) admissibility of the victim’s testimony for abuse of discretion, (2) proportionality under Art. I, §16, and (3) whether the 10-year sentence is inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of O’Neill’s testimony about his wife’s death	State: Defendants opened door by attacking O’Neill’s mental state and credibility; redirect probing emotional state was proper.	Randolph: Testimony was irrelevant, prejudicial, and outside redirect scope; it could improperly bolster identification.	Court: Even if admission was error, it was harmless given identification, defendant found hiding in vehicle, and extensive prior cross-examination.
Proportionality of sentence under Indiana Constitution	State: Sentence (10 years) is within statutory range and justified by additional conviction and victim harm.	Randolph: Receiving different sentences for near‑contemporaneous Level 3 robberies is disproportionate.	Court: Sentence is within statutory limits and not so extreme as to shock public sentiment; proportionality claim fails.
Inappropriateness under App. R. 7(B)	State: Trial court properly weighed offense severity, victim harm, and defendant’s record; 10 years justified.	Randolph: 10 years is inappropriate; should match lighter Ruiz sentence.	Court: After reviewing nature of offense and offender’s character (juvenile arrests, prior conviction, on probation), 10-year sentence is not inappropriate.

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459 (Ind. 2015) (standard of review for evidentiary rulings and deference to trial court)
Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (scope and narrow reach of Indiana proportionality clause)
Pittman v. State, 45 N.E.3d 805 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (proportionality test whether sentence shocks public sentiment)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (purpose and limits of Appellate Rule 7(B) review)
Hogan v. State, 409 N.E.2d 588 (Ind. 1980) (victim’s severe emotional harm as a proper sentencing consideration)
Rutherford v. State, 866 N.E.2d 867 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (appellate deference and burden on defendant in 7(B) claims)