213 N.E.3d 511
Ind. Ct. App.2023Background
- Between 1982 and 1985 multiple home invasions and sexual assaults occurred in Shelby County; victims reported similar modus operandi (ski masks, chain wallets, enema use, Vaseline, binding with hosiery, threats to return).
- Police re-opened the cases decades later; familial DNA and DNA from an envelope linked Hessler to biological evidence from one crime (T.Y./R.Y.), prompting his 2020 arrest.
- Search of Hessler’s home recovered items matching crime patterns (enema bags and related pornography, Vaseline, handcuffs, masks, chain wallet, knives, Polaroid photos, Google searches of victims/addresses).
- The State tried 19 charges (rape, criminal deviate conduct, burglary, robbery—all Class A felonies after some statutory enhancements); a jury convicted Hessler on all counts presented and the trial court imposed an aggregate executed sentence of 650 years.
- On appeal Hessler raised three issues: (1) prosecutorial misconduct during testimony and closing, (2) whether four burglary convictions violate double jeopardy under the pre‑Wadle common‑law enhancement rule, and (3) whether the aggregate sentence is inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct (cross‑examination & closing) | State: statements were proper responses to defense, objections addressed, jury admonished where needed; no prejudicial misconduct. | Hessler: multiple remarks and argumentative cross‑examination cumulatively denied a fair trial. | No reversible misconduct for preserved objections; unpreserved claims did not amount to fundamental error given the overwhelming evidence. |
| Double jeopardy re: burglary enhancements | State: Wadle v. State replaces the old common‑law rule and applies retroactively, so enhancements are permissible. | Hessler: common‑law rule (no enhancement based on same injury) applied at time of crimes; Wadle should not be applied retroactively. | Majority: Wadle applies retroactively and displaces the old common‑law rule; Hessler’s double‑jeopardy claim fails. (Judge Vaidik dissents on retroactivity/ex post facto grounds.) |
| Inappropriate sentence (App. R. 7(B)) | State: aggregate 650 years reflects severity, multiple victims, and Hessler’s character and criminal history; trial court properly individualized sentences. | Hessler: aggregate and consecutive maximums are excessive given nature/character; urges reduction. | Sentence affirmed—court finds nature of offenses and offender’s history justify the aggregate consecutive maximums; not an exceptional case warranting reduction. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227 (Ind. 2020) (established new framework for substantive double‑jeopardy analysis and disavowed prior common‑law tests)
- Ryan v. State, 9 N.E.3d 663 (Ind. 2014) (standard for reviewing prosecutorial‑misconduct claims and preservation requirements)
- Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. 2002) (former double‑jeopardy test regarding evidentiary overlap)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (prior double‑jeopardy precedent later displaced by Wadle)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (Appellate Rule 7(B) review focuses on aggregate sentence)
- Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111 (Ind. 2015) (character and offense considerations for concluding a sentence is inappropriate)
- Cooper v. State, 854 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2006) (gravity of peril measured by probable persuasive effect of prosecutor's conduct)