Michael Kilburn v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 16A01-1606-CR-1419

Michael Kilburn, stepfather of 12-year-old special-needs child K.E., was accused of digitally penetrating and performing oral sex on K.E.; the acts caused vaginal bleeding and he threatened to kill her if she told anyone.
K.E. immediately reported the abuse to her mother, who observed bleeding and confronted Kilburn; Kilburn admitted to oral sex but claimed the child requested it.
Police interviewed Kilburn on June 4, 2014 after reading Miranda rights; Kilburn signed a waiver and, after about two hours, made inculpatory statements admitting penetration and oral sex.
Kilburn sought a competency evaluation; two appointed experts found borderline intellectual functioning but competent to stand trial.
Trial court denied Kilburn’s motion to suppress his statement as involuntary; after a bench trial Kilburn was convicted of two counts of child molestation (one Class A, one Class C) and sentenced to concurrent terms totaling 30 years.
On appeal Kilburn argued the confession was involuntary (given his borderline intelligence and police tactics) and that his sentence was inappropriate under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Kilburn)	Held
Whether the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Kilburn’s recorded statement as involuntary	The statement was voluntary: Miranda warnings were given, Kilburn waived rights, interrogation was noncoercive, and his answers were rational and detailed	The statement was involuntary due to police tactics combined with Kilburn’s borderline intelligence (compromising his ability to resist or understand)	Court affirmed admission: totality of circumstances showed voluntary statement; deputies were cordial, no threats or promises, Kilburn understood and answered coherently
Whether Kilburn’s 30-year sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B)	The advisory sentence for Class A molestation (30 years) is appropriate given severity, victim harm, position of trust, and threats to victim	The sentence is inappropriate given Kilburn’s borderline intelligence and other mitigating factors	Court held sentence not inappropriate: nature of offenses and Kilburn’s character (including prior probation violation) support the advisory sentence

Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90 (Ind. 2005) (State must prove voluntariness by preponderance under U.S. Constitution and beyond a reasonable doubt under Indiana Constitution)
Ringo v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1209 (Ind. 2000) (admission of defendant’s statement reviewed for abuse of discretion)
State v. Keller, 845 N.E.2d 154 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (voluntariness turns on totality of circumstances and presence of coercive tactics)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (defendant bears burden to show sentence inappropriate)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (appellate review’s role in revising sentences under Rule 7(B))
Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (advisory sentence as legislative starting point)