Michael P. Swygart v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
01A02-1704-CR-847
| Ind. Ct. App. | Oct 20, 2017Background
- Victim I.H., a step-daughter with developmental/anxiety issues, lived with defendant Michael Swygart and her mother; Swygart was her primary caregiver.
- When I.H. was 13, Swygart allegedly forced her onto a washing machine after a shower, spread her legs, put his head between her legs, and examined/spread her vagina. I.H. reported this immediately to her mother.
- When I.H. was 14 (summer 2015), Swygart allegedly gave her Klonopin, entered her bedroom in boxers, digitally penetrated her, performed oral sex, and inserted his penis briefly; I.H. repeatedly asked him to stop and reported the rape to her mother that morning.
- I.H.’s disclosure led to confrontation; Swygart injured his wrist breaking a window and attempted to keep the matter private; I.H. later reported to police via her father/grandmother.
- The State charged Swygart with three Level 4 felonies (Count I: child molesting for the bathroom incident; Counts II & III: sexual misconduct with a minor for the oral and vaginal acts). A jury convicted on all counts and the court imposed an aggregate 26-year sentence (23 executed, 3 suspended).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for Count I (child molesting) | Victim’s testimony and circumstantial inferences show forcible fondling with intent to arouse. | Incident may not have occurred; intent not proven. | Affirmed: uncorroborated child testimony sufficient; conduct supports intent inference. |
| Sufficiency for Counts II & III (sexual misconduct with a minor) | Victim’s testimony established digital, oral, and penile penetration of a 14‑year‑old by a 21+ year old. | Victim lacks credibility; conflicts with defendant’s account. | Affirmed: testimony consistent and corroborated by circumstances; credibility is for jury. |
| Sentencing abuse of discretion — failure to find mitigators | State: trial court considered record and permissibly declined some mitigators. | Argues hardship to dependents, prior probation compliance, community support were mitigating. | Affirmed: court not required to find or explain rejection of those mitigators. |
| Sentencing abuse — consecutive terms for Counts II & III; appropriateness | State: consecutive sentences allowed for separate crimes against same victim; total consecutive term below statutory cap. | Argues consecutive terms and aggregate sentence excessive/inappropriate. | Affirmed: consecutive 7+7 (14 years for bedroom acts) lawful under statute; aggregate 26 years not inappropriate given breach of parental trust. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for appellate sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
- Wisneskey v. State, 736 N.E.2d 763 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (uncorroborated child testimony can sustain molesting conviction)
- Bass v. State, 947 N.E.2d 456 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (intent for child molesting may be inferred from conduct)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for appellate review of sentencing and when remand is appropriate)
- Vermillion v. State, 978 N.E.2d 459 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (consecutive sentences may be imposed for distinct crimes from single confrontation)
- Hamilton v. State, 955 N.E.2d 723 (Ind. 2011) (breach of parental/position-of-trust aggravates sentencing)