Jonathan Webster v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
71A03-1610-CR-2319
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 31, 2017Background
- Victim M.W. (born 1999) testified that her uncle, Jonathan Webster, digitally penetrated her on multiple occasions while living in the family home.
- Webster admitted in a recorded interview to rubbing M.W.’s back, touching her butt, and having his hand on her "privates," but denied finger penetration; he also wrote an apology letter.
- The State charged Webster with Class A felony child molesting; a jury convicted him and the trial court sentenced him to the advisory 30-year term.
- During closing, the State displayed and quoted Bowles v. State to argue an uncorroborated victim’s testimony can sustain a conviction.
- While deliberating, the jury asked what the word "ordinarily" meant (from the prosecutor’s slide); the court gave a dictionary definition over defense objection.
- At sentencing the court designated Webster a "credit restricted felon" under the 2008 statute; defendant challenged this as an ex post facto application.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Webster) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct for citing Bowles in closing | Citing Bowles was a proper statement of law and an acceptable characterization of evidence | Quoting the supreme court case in argument was improper and required admonishment/mistrial | No misconduct; citation was proper and final jury instructions cured any issue |
| Trial court response to jury question (dictionary definition of "ordinarily") | Court may clarify terms; dictionary definition aided deliberations | Giving the dictionary meaning referenced prosecutor’s slide and was improper | No abuse of discretion; instruction was not prejudicial and any error was harmless |
| Designation as a credit-restricted felon (ex post facto challenge) | Evidence supported a reasonable inference that at least one incident occurred after July 1, 2008, so designation lawful | Offenses occurred 2006–2007, before the 2008 statute; applying it retroactively violates ex post facto | Held valid: Webster’s own testimony that he lived in the house 2008–2010 permitted inference an offense occurred after July 1, 2008, so no ex post facto violation |
| Appropriateness of 30-year sentence under App. R. 7(B) | Advisory sentence (30 yrs) fits the gravity: multiple penetrations of a child and abuse of trust | Sentence is excessive given defendant’s lack of criminal record and evidentiary gaps | Sentence affirmed as not inappropriate given nature (multiple digital penetrations, harm) and character (breach of trust) |
Key Cases Cited
- Bowles v. State, 738 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2000) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony can ordinarily sustain child-molesting conviction)
- Poling v. State, 938 N.E.2d 1212 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (prosecutor may argue law and draw conclusions from evidence in closing)
- Thomas v. State, 774 N.E.2d 33 (Ind. 2002) (court erred in rereading prosecutor’s quotation of case law to jury, but error was harmless under circumstances)
- Upton v. State, 904 N.E.2d 700 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (applying credit-restricted felon statute to offenses committed before its effective date violates ex post facto)
- Sharp v. State, 970 N.E.2d 647 (Ind. 2012) (where evidence permits a reasonable inference that at least one offense occurred after effective date, credit-restriction designation does not violate ex post facto)
- Shultz v. State, 417 N.E.2d 1127 (Ind. Ct. App. 1981) (use of a dictionary in jury deliberations does not presumptively prejudice defendant)
- Emerson v. State, 952 N.E.2d 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (general jury instruction that arguments are not evidence can cure improper prosecutorial remarks)