William Remy v. State of Indiana
17 N.E.3d 396
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- William Remy was convicted after a jury trial of three counts of child molesting (Class A), one count of child molesting (Class C), and performing sexual conduct in the presence of a minor (Class D; aggregate 95.5 years).
- The victims involved HB, an eleven-year-old who lived with Remy and HB’s mother; the abuse occurred beginning in 2009 and continued for about two years.
- Remy allegedly subjected HB to multiple sexual acts, including anal sex, use of dildos/vibrators, and being restrained or humiliated, while showing HB pornographic images and videos.
- Police found pornographic material and sex toys at Remy’s home; HB testified to numerous acts and Remy’s grooming behavior, including providing guidance and control.
- Remy was charged with five counts in October 2011; the jury convicted on all counts in August 2013, and the trial court sentenced consecutively to an aggregate term.
- On appeal, Remy challenged the admission of most pornographic images under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b), and challenged the overall sentence as inappropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the pornographic material was admissible under Rule 404(b). | State contends images show grooming and plan to commit acts. | Remy contends images are irrelevant and prejudicial | Admission error is harmless; evidence overall supported underlying guilt. |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate in light of the offenses and Remy’s character. | Aggravators justified continued enhanced penalties. | No physical injury, no prior criminal history, Harris guidance. | Sentence not inappropriate; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lannan v. State, 600 N.E.2d 1334 (Ind. 1992) (adopted federal Rule 404(b) standard; limits propensity evidence)
- Lay v. State, 659 N.E.2d 1005 (Ind. 1995) (plan/grooming as 404(b) exceptions; cautions against prejudicial use)
- Piercefield v. State, 877 N.E.2d 1213 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (grooming evidence admissible; but less prejudicial than explicit acts)
- Greenboam v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (past molestation evidence; high prejudice concerns)
- Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008) (aggravating factors justify enhanced sentence but not necessarily consecutive terms)
- Monroe v. State, 886 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008) (consecutive vs. concurrent sentencing; rationales clarified)
- Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2012) (harmless error standard for evidentiary error)