Kyle W. Dilts v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 786
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Kyle Dilts was convicted by a jury of two counts of Class A felony child molesting (Count I: sexual intercourse; Count II: deviate sexual conduct) based on multiple incidents against his daughter between 2011–2013.
- A Child Advocacy Center (CAC) videotaped forensic interview of the victim was recorded and the trial court held a pretrial PPS (child hearsay) hearing, finding the video generally reliable and admissible if the victim testified at trial.
- At trial the prosecution played a redacted version of the CAC video after extensive pretrial discussion and court rulings; Dilts did not lodge a contemporaneous objection when the exhibit was admitted and only objected (then withdrew) during playback.
- The State introduced testimony that Dilts failed to appear at a CHINS hearing because he was upset and voluntarily admitted himself to a mental-health facility amid suicidal ideation; the defense had referenced possible suicide-related testimony during voir dire and did not contemporaneously object when the witness testified to those facts.
- The jury found Dilts guilty on both counts. At sentencing the trial court vacated the Count II conviction (oral/deviate sexual conduct), citing double jeopardy/continuing-crime reasoning, and imposed a 36-year sentence on Count I. The State timely cross-appealed the vacatur.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Dilts) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of testimony about Dilts's suicidal ideation | Relevant as evidence of consciousness of guilt (analogous to flight); probative outweighs prejudice | Testimony was irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial; only ideation (not attempt); should be excluded under Rules 402/403 and 404(b) | Waived on appeal for lack of contemporaneous objection; no fundamental-error argument preserved; court declines to decide admissibility on merits |
| Admissibility of CAC videotaped interview while victim also testified live | CAC video admissible under PPS and Rule 106; State says defense opened the door during cross-exam | Playing video while victim testified impermissibly bolsters/vouches (Tyler); should be excluded | Waived on appeal for lack of contemporaneous objection when exhibit was offered/admitted; objection during playback too late |
| Trial court vacating Count II conviction (double jeopardy) | Vacatur improper because the two counts have distinct statutory elements and distinct evidentiary facts (sexual intercourse vs. deviate sexual conduct) | Trial court relied on double jeopardy/continuous-crime doctrines to vacate Count II | Reversed: double jeopardy not violated; convictions are for distinct offenses so vacatur was error |
| Trial court vacating Count II conviction (continuous-crime doctrine) | Continuous-crime doctrine inapplicable because it applies only when multiple charges are the same continuous offense; these are distinct offenses | Trial court acted within discretion based on prior conflicting authority | Reversed: under Hines (Ind. 2015) doctrine only applies where defendant charged multiple times for the same continuous offense; here offenses are distinct; remand for entry of judgment on Count II and resentencing |
Key Cases Cited
- Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463 (Ind. 2009) (discusses limits on admitting recorded statements when witness also testifies live to avoid vouching/bolstering)
- Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204 (Ind. 2010) (failure to make contemporaneous objection waives evidentiary claim on appeal)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (analyzes admissibility of suicide-attempt evidence and relevance to consciousness of guilt)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (actual-evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (clarifies continuing-crime doctrine applies only where defendant is charged multiple times for the same continuous offense)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (explains "reasonable possibility" actual-evidence double jeopardy standard)
- Griffin v. State, 717 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. 1999) (actual-evidence test requires more than speculative overlap of facts)