Heinzman v. State
970 N.E.2d 214
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Heinzman was convicted in Hamilton Superior Court of three counts of Class C felony child molesting and pled guilty to Class D felony sexual battery in a consolidated case.
- The aggregate sentence imposed was 24 years, with three C-counts consecutive and the D-count concurrent.
- Charges arose from molestation of Z.B. between 2002 and 2003 and related acts involving Z.B.'s brother E.B. between 2003 and 2004.
- A motion for discharge under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) was denied in September 2010 after delays largely caused by court congestion and continuances.
- Heinzman appealed five issues: discharge, vouching testimony, hearsay letter, double jeopardy, and sentencing; the court affirmed all rulings and the sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the discharge denial was proper | Heinzman argued 4(C) time limits were violated | State argued delays were attributable to Heinzman and congestion; waiver occurred | Rule 4(C) claim waived; speedy-trial claim fails |
| Whether the detective’s testimony vouched for credibility | Heinzman claimed testimony invaded jury’s fact-finding by vouching | Boyd-Smith merely described substantiation as basis for further investigation | No reversible abuse of discretion; not improper vouching |
| Whether the letter by the victim was inadmissible hearsay | Letter contained hearsay statements used to prove truth | Letter fell under Rule 803(3) as then-existing state of mind; cumulative | Harmless error; admissible under Rule 803(3) and cumulative to direct evidence |
| Whether three C counts violate double jeopardy | All counts alleged the same conduct | Evidence showed multiple distinct acts; not same offense | Not a double jeopardy violation; multiple acts supported separate counts |
| Whether the sentence was inappropriate under Appellate Rule 7(B) | Aggregate 24-year sentence overly harsh | Court properly weighed aggravators and mitigator; not inappropriate | Not inappropriate; affirmed sentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Upshaw v. State, 934 N.E.2d 178 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (discharged claims under Rule 4(C) context and standard of review)
- Feuston v. State, 953 N.E.2d 545 (Ind.Ct.App.2011) (deference to factual findings; de novo review of legal conclusions)
- Bramley v. Tipton Cnty. Court, 835 N.E.2d 479 (Ind.2005) (waiver of speedy-trial rights when no timely objection to extended date)
- Vermillion v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind.1999) (speedy-trial analysis framework; Barker v. Wingo influence)
- Baumgartner v. State, 891 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind.Ct.App.2008) (waiver principle for 4(C) challenges when no timely objection)
- Fisher v. State, 933 N.E.2d 526 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (speedy-trial framework applied to Indiana Constitution and Sixth Amendment)