Jessie Rodarmel v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
41A01-1610-CR-2483
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- In summer 2014, Jessie Rodarmel lived with his wife and her three children (two daughters ages 9 and 11, and a son). He showed the daughters pornographic videos, demonstrated a sex toy, and instructed them to perform oral sex; he also gave the son a flash drive containing pornographic files.
- Victims later disclosed the abuse to their parents; police interviewed Rodarmel on October 7, 2014 after he voluntarily came to the station, was told he was not under arrest, and left after the interview.
- Rodarmel admitted disseminating pornography to the children but denied molestation.
- A jury convicted him of two counts of Level 1 child molesting and three counts of Level 6 dissemination of matter harmful to minors.
- The trial court sentenced Rodarmel to an aggregate 30-year term (25 executed, 5 suspended).
- On appeal Rodarmel challenged (1) admission of his police interview statements (Miranda/custody issue), (2) exclusion of proffered evidence of other sexual acts involving the children (Rape Shield / sexual innocence inference), and (3) asserted his sentence was inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Rodarmel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admission of police interview statements (Miranda) | Interview statements admissible because Rodarmel was not in custody and Miranda warnings were not required. | Statements inadmissible because Detective did not give Miranda warnings; interrogation was effectively custodial. | Court held Rodarmel was not in custody (voluntary arrival, told he was free to leave, unlocked door, left and drove himself); Miranda not required; statements admissible. |
| Exclusion of evidence re: other sexual acts (Rape Shield / sexual innocence inference) | Exclusion appropriate under Rape Shield; State’s interest in protecting victims and limiting collateral sexual-history evidence justified. | Exclusion violated right to confront/cross-examine and prevented use of sexual-innocence inference to show victims had prior exposure/knowledge. | Court held Rodarmel failed to meet burden to show prior acts were sufficiently similar and timely to support the sexual-innocence inference; exclusion did not deny effective cross-examination. |
| Appropriateness of sentence under App. R. 7(B) | Sentence appropriate given repeated abuse of trust and gravity of offenses. | Sentence inappropriate / excessive; argued offenses not extraordinary and pointed to clean criminal history, employment, military service. | Court affirmed 30-year aggregate sentence as not inappropriate given the nature, extent, and breach of trust. |
Key Cases Cited
- Luna v. State, 788 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. 2003) (voluntary, noncustodial police interview does not require Miranda warnings)
- Oatts v. State, 899 N.E.2d 714 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (adopted compromise approach to sexual-innocence inference; defendant bears burden to show prior acts sufficiently similar and prior in time)
- Thomas v. State, 471 N.E.2d 677 (Ind. 1984) (Rape Shield Act does not violate Sixth Amendment absent actual impingement on cross-examination)
- Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2011) (harsher sentence appropriate where defendant violates a position of trust such as a parent-child relationship)