128 N.E.3d 456
Ind. Ct. App.2019Background
- Nathaniel Hale, age 21+, lived with fiancée S.F. and her then‑10‑year‑old daughter K.F.; over Sept 2016–Jan 2017 Hale repeatedly entered K.F.’s bedroom and touched her vaginal area under her clothing.
- K.F. described five separate incidents in which Hale put his hand/fingers inside her pants/underwear and moved them in "up and down" or "circular" motions and made her touch his penis.
- K.F. reported pain and described the contact as occurring underneath her clothes; a portion of her forensic interview was admitted at trial.
- The State charged seven counts of child molesting (five Level 1 felonies, two Level 4 felonies); a jury convicted on all counts.
- Trial court sentenced Hale to 30 years on each Level 1 count and 6 years on each Level 4 count with specified concurrency/consecutivity, for an aggregate executed term of 66 years.
- On appeal Hale challenged (1) sufficiency of evidence on penetration, (2) abuse of discretion in sentencing (aggravators/mitigators), and (3) sentence appropriateness under Ind. Appellate Rule 7(B).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hale) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence of "other sexual conduct" (penetration of external genitalia) | K.F.’s testimony and forensic interview describing fingers/hands inside her pants/underwear touching her vagina supports conviction; penetration of external genitalia is sufficient. | Testimony was vague/equivocal; no medical/physical evidence; K.F. didn’t expressly say vaginal canal penetration. | Affirmed. Jury could reasonably find Hale penetrated K.F.’s external genitalia; child’s testimony alone can sustain molestation conviction. |
| Abuse of discretion in sentencing (aggravators/mitigators) | Trial court permissibly found aggravators: multiple occurrences over months and breach of trust; considered mitigators but found them outweighed. | Court improperly used the time span as an aggravator (overlaps offense elements) and failed to find military service, disability, and employment as mitigators. | No abuse. Court clarified it relied on number/recurrence of incidents; military service and employment need not be mitigating here; sentencing discretion upheld. |
| Appropriateness of aggregate 66‑year sentence under Rule 7(B) | Sentence reflects severity, repeated predatory abuse, breach of trust, and impact on victim; within statutory authority and not excessive. | Offenses on the lower edge of Level 1 rubric; Hale’s character — military service, education, employment, limited criminal history — warrants lesser concurrent term. | Not inappropriate. Deference to trial court; evidence of predatory, repeated conduct and offender’s record do not compel revision. |
Key Cases Cited
- Meehan v. State, 7 N.E.3d 255 (Ind. 2014) (standard for sufficiency review and deference to factfinder)
- Boggs v. State, 104 N.E.3d 1287 (Ind. 2018) (slight penetration of external genitalia suffices for "other sexual conduct")
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for sentencing statements, aggravators, and mitigators)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (deference to trial court sentencing decisions and role of appellate review)
- McElroy v. State, 865 N.E.2d 584 (Ind. 2007) (trial court may consider particularized factual circumstances of offenses as aggravating)