Richard A. Mise v. State of Indiana, 142 N.E.3d 1079

Defendant Richard A. Mise had father‑daughter relationships with two step‑daughters, S.M. (b. 2001) and E.R. (b. 2002), who visited him on weekends at his parents’ home.
E.R. testified that Mise twice instructed her to "check for fleas," including having her insert her finger into her vagina while he watched, and also testified that he later inserted his finger into her vagina while she sat between his legs on a couch.
S.M. testified that when she was about twelve Mise twice touched her vagina: once in his bedroom (digital penetration) and once when he applied medicated lotion and then touched/fingered her.
The State charged Mise with Class A felony child molesting (E.R.) and Class C felony child molesting (S.M.). The girls’ forensic interview videos were produced in discovery but not admitted at trial; both victims testified live. Mise did not object to the victims’ live testimony about multiple incidents.
A jury convicted Mise on both counts. The trial court sentenced him to consecutive advisory terms: 30 years (Class A) with 25 executed and 5 suspended, plus 4 years (Class C), for an aggregate 34 years with 5 suspended.
On appeal Mise argued (1) fundamental error from admission of testimony about multiple incidents (Rule 404(b) issue) and (2) that his aggregate advisory sentence is inappropriate. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of victims' testimony/multiple incidents under Evid. R. 404(b) / fundamental error	Testimony was admissible: S.M.'s multiple acts were direct evidence of the charged offense; E.R.'s "flea‑check" testimony was admissible under Rule 404(b) to show grooming/preparation.	Admission violated Rule 404(b) because the testimony described uncharged prior bad acts; failure to object is waived but preserved under the fundamental‑error exception.	No fundamental error. S.M.'s multiple incidents were direct evidence; E.R.'s flea‑check testimony was admissible to show grooming/preparation under Rule 404(b). Defendant failed to show the admission made a fair trial impossible.
Appropriateness of sentence under App. R. 7(B)	The advisory consecutive terms fit the nature of the offenses and offender's character and are not inappropriate.	Aggregate 34‑year term with 5 years suspended is excessive/inappropriate.	Sentence not inappropriate. Court gives deference to advisory sentence and finds aggravators (position of trust, multiple victims/acts, acts committed with others in the house) support the sentence; defendant did not carry heavy burden to show otherwise.

Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (defines narrow fundamental‑error exception and its elements)
Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (failure to object at trial waives error absent fundamental error)
Marshall v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1170 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (repeated molestation testimony can be direct evidence of charged offense, not impermissible 404(b) evidence)
Garner v. State, 754 N.E.2d 984 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (similar holding that multiple incident testimony was direct evidence of charged offenses)
Piercefield v. State, 877 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (grooming/preparation is a recognized non‑propensity purpose under Rule 404(b))
Guffey v. State, 42 N.E.3d 152 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (evidence of preparatory acts admissible to show grooming and plan)
Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073 (Ind. 2006) (standards for Appellate Rule 7(B) review of sentence)
Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (role and limits of appellate review under Rule 7(B))
Conley v. State, 972 N.E.2d 864 (Ind. 2012) (clarifies that 7(B) asks whether sentence is inappropriate, not whether another sentence would be better)
Malenchik v. State, 928 N.E.2d 564 (Ind. 2010) (probation office risk assessment scores are supplemental tools, not per se aggravators)