Jessie Grimes v. State of Indiana
84 N.E.3d 635
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Defendant Jessie Grimes, father of S.G. (14) and D.G. (10), was charged after S.G. reported months of sexual abuse; convictions included 18 counts of Level 4 felony incest, 2 counts Level 6 dissemination of matter harmful to minors, and 1 count Level 6 obstruction of justice.
- Allegations: Grimes showed pornography to the children, sent explicit images via Facebook, coerced sexual acts and intercourse with S.G. over ~nine weeks (more than 18 separate incidents), videotaped sex, and bought sexual items for S.G.
- While jailed, Grimes had a third party send a message from S.G.’s Facebook to suggest she fabricated the allegations; that conduct produced the obstruction charge.
- Pretrial: Grimes moved to dismiss the incest counts for lack of specificity and to sever the obstruction count; both motions were denied. He did not timely renew the severance motion at trial.
- Trial and sentence: Jury convicted on remaining counts; court vacated duplicative sexual-misconduct counts, sentenced Grimes to consecutive advisory terms totaling 111 years (108 for incest, plus three 1-year terms).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Grimes) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Specificity of charging information | Information alleging 20 separate acts between dates with "different time than any other Count" gave adequate notice | Counts lacked specific facts distinguishing each act, depriving due process and preparation of defense | No fundamental error; information plus context was sufficient and Grimes wasn’t misled |
| 2. Severance of obstruction charge | Joinder proper because evidence and motive were related; offenses could be fairly tried together | Obstruction charge was not of same/related character and should be severed | Waived by failure to renew; alternatively, denial was within trial court’s discretion |
| 3. Consecutive sentencing / single episode | Consecutive sentences allowed because offenses were not a single episode | Offenses arose from one continuous course in same place/time and should be treated as single episode limiting total consecutive exposure | Offenses were spread over many days/weeks and were not simultaneous; consecutive sentences lawful |
| 4. Aggravating factors and aggregate sentence appropriateness | Aggravating factors (extended period, abuse of custody, multiple victims/acts) supported consecutive advisory terms; aggregate sentence not inappropriate | Court improperly relied on victim age and number of acts as aggravators; sentence is excessive/inappropriate | Court improperly considered age and number of acts as aggravators but harmless; sentence affirmed as not inappropriate |
Key Cases Cited
- Leggs v. State, 966 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (charging information must give notice to prepare defense and protect against double jeopardy)
- Laney v. State, 868 N.E.2d 561 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (State need not plead detailed factual allegations in the information)
- Dickenson v. State, 835 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (information errors are fatal only if they mislead defendant)
- Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015) (distinguishing joinder tests: same/ similar character vs. same conduct or series of acts)
- Slone v. State, 11 N.E.3d 969 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (whether offenses form a single episode is fact-intensive)
- Williams v. State, 891 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (single episode analysis focuses on timing, simultaneity, and whether one charge’s account requires reference to another)
- Edrington v. State, 909 N.E.2d 1093 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (victim age as element cannot also be used as aggravator)
- Gomillia v. State, 13 N.E.3d 846 (Ind. 2014) (court abuses discretion if it relies on an aggravator that is a material element of the offense)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate deference to trial court sentencing discretion)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (standard for appropriateness review under Appellate Rule 7(B))