Johnathon I. Carter v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 530
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Between Aug. 2010 and Apr. 2013 Johnathon Carter (step‑father) repeatedly sexually abused M.N., a child under 14, including oral and anal intercourse and fondling; disclosures occurred in 2011 and again in 2013.
- Forensic interviews and sexual assault nurse examinations corroborated M.N.’s account; M.N. had earlier recanted to a sibling, explaining he lied to protect the family.
- State charged Carter with five counts: three Class A felony child molesting (deviate sexual conduct: penis/mouth/anus) and two Class C felony child molesting (fondling).
- At trial the court admitted expert testimony on child‑abuse disclosure dynamics; Carter objected and sought limiting instructions.
- Jury convicted on all five counts; trial court imposed consecutive sentences totaling 98 years. Carter appealed claiming jury‑unanimity error, improper expert testimony, insufficient evidence, and inappropriate sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Carter) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Jury unanimity instruction | General unanimity instruction + prosecutor’s closing adequately directed jury; tendered instruction was incomplete | Trial court erred by refusing Carter’s instruction ensuring juror unanimity as to specific acts | Rejected Carter’s claim; his proffered instruction was an incomplete statement of law and any error was not fundamental given evidence and closing argument (conviction affirmed) |
| Expert testimony (Smallwood) | Testimony explained disclosure/recantation dynamics and did not vouch for complainant | Testimony impermissibly vouched for M.N.’s credibility, invading jury province | Admission was proper; testimony was general (no opinion on truth) and not improper vouching (no reversible error) |
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Victim testimony + corroborating interviews and nurse exams supported convictions | M.N.’s testimony was unreliable/recanted earlier; defense urges incredible‑dubiosity reversal | Evidence was sufficient; testimony not inherently improbable and jury credibility determinations stand (conviction affirmed) |
| Sentence appropriateness | Offenses were repeated, serious, and involved a position of trust; consecutive advisory terms were justified | 98‑year aggregate is excessive given youth, employment, lack of criminal history, and rehabilitative potential | Sentence revised as excessive: remanded to impose aggregate 68 years (two consecutive 30‑yr A‑felony terms, one concurrent 30‑yr A term, plus two consecutive 4‑yr C‑felony terms) |
Key Cases Cited
- Surber v. State, 884 N.E.2d 856 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (abuse of discretion standard for jury instructions)
- Brakie v. State, 999 N.E.2d 989 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (standards for refusing tendered instructions)
- Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2001) (harmlessness where conviction clearly sustained)
- Baker v. State, 948 N.E.2d 1169 (Ind. 2011) (unanimity in child‑molesting cases; permitting conviction if jurors agree defendant committed same acts or all acts described by victim)
- People v. Jones, 792 P.2d 643 (Cal. 1990) (adopted unanimity instruction approach cited in Baker)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (framework for evaluating fundamental error in context of all information given to jury)
- Otte v. State, 967 N.E.2d 540 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (expert testimony explaining victim behavior in domestic violence permitted)
- Love v. State, 761 N.E.2d 806 (Ind. 2002) (incredible‑dubiosity rule standards)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review of sentence appropriateness)