Rodney Melton v. State of Indiana
993 N.E.2d 253
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rodney Melton lived with Gloria Davis and her two children; one child (C.D.) was born in 2000 and called Melton “Keno or daddy.”
- In January 2012, C.D. awoke to Melton sucking and touching her chest; Melton threatened to kill her if she told.
- N.J., a 14-year-old staying overnight, was awakened by Melton rubbing her and then shown pornographic videos on his phone; Melton later exposed and masturbated in front of N.J.
- N.J. eventually reported the incidents to her mother and police; C.D. also disclosed abuse to others.
- The State charged Melton with child molesting (class C felony, relating to C.D.) and dissemination of matter harmful to minors (class D felony, relating to N.J.). A jury convicted him on both counts.
- The trial court sentenced Melton to 8 years for child molesting and 3 years for dissemination, ordered consecutively for an aggregate 11-year term.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support conviction for dissemination of matter harmful to minors (showing porn and exposing penis to N.J.) | State: Melton knowingly performed an exhibition before a minor by showing porn and masturbating in front of 14‑year‑old N.J.; location (home) does not negate "performance." | Melton: Acts occurred in a private residence, so they were not a "performance" under cases limiting statute to public/ theatrical exhibitions. | Court: Evidence was sufficient; statute defines "performance" as any exhibition before an audience (one or more persons) and does not require a public setting; Riffel/Low were distinguishable. |
| Whether aggregate sentence (8 + 3 years consecutive = 11 years) is inappropriate under App. R. 7(B) | State: Sentence warranted by depravity of offenses, victimization of minors, and Melton’s escalating and serious criminal history. | Melton: Trial court abused discretion by not treating substance abuse as mitigating and by finding certain aggravators; argues sentence excessive and appeals to rehabilitative ideals. | Court: After review of nature of offenses and character (young but serious criminal record, mental health issues, threats, prior revocations), sentence is not inappropriate. |
Key Cases Cited
- Riffel v. State, 549 N.E.2d 1084 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (held obscene-performance statute was not meant to cover private acts in defendant’s own residence)
- Low v. State, 580 N.E.2d 737 (Ind. Ct. App. 1991) (reversed conviction where obscene-performance statute could not be applied to private hotel-room acts under facts)
- Sloan v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1128 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (distinguished Riffel/Low; conduct in a home the defendant unlawfully entered can constitute a "performance")
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence and reasonable inferences in favor of conviction)
- Leffingwell v. State, 810 N.E.2d 369 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (affirmed maximum sentence for child molesting where nature/ depravity supported sentence)