Maddox Macy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 12A02-1703-CR-440

In late May/early June 2016, Macy displayed pornographic photographs in a front-window of her home facing her neighbor Anderson’s children’s bedroom window, a few feet apart.
Anderson and her children saw the images; Anderson initially kept curtains closed and later called police when pictures remained.
Sgt. Schilling observed the pornographic images from the sidewalk, confirmed their nature, and was told by Macy’s daughter that Macy had placed them.
Macy told Sgt. Schilling her attorney said the pictures were permissible and declined to discuss them, then drove away; officers later obtained and executed a warrant to seize the photos.
Macy was charged with Dissemination of Matter Harmful to Minors (Level 6 felony) and Distribution/Exhibition of Obscene Matter (Class A misdemeanor); after a bench trial she was convicted and sentenced (365 days concurrent, all but two days suspended).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Macy acted knowingly/ intentionally in displaying matter harmful to minors	State: testimony showed Macy placed explicit images visible to neighbor children and told officer her attorney said they were fine, supporting knowledge	Macy: challenges Sgt. Schilling’s testimony and argues insufficient proof she knew images would be viewed by minors (children often had guests)	Affirmed: court concluded testimony from Anderson and Sgt. Schilling supported an inference Macy was aware of images and chose not to remove them, satisfying scienter for both offenses

Cox v. State, 774 N.E.2d 1025 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence most favorable to judgment)
Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (cited in sufficiency-of-evidence discussion)
Mediate v. State, 498 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. 1986) (distinguished by court; not controlling on officer testimony)