MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED this Memorandum Decision shall not be Jun 15 2018, 10:04 am regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court Court of Appeals the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Jennifer L. Koethe Curtis T. Hill, Jr. La Porte, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana Lyubov Gore Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
David Michael Flynn, June 15, 2018 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 46A05-1704-CR-863 v. Appeal from the LaPorte Circuit Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Thomas J. Appellee-Plaintiff. Alevizos, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 46C01-1510-FA-19
Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 1 of 18 Case Summary [1] David M. Flynn (“Flynn”) appeals his convictions, following a jury trial, for
child molesting, as a Class A felony;1 two counts of sexual misconduct with a
minor, as Class B felonies;2 two counts of incest, as Class B felonies;3 and two
counts of incest, as Class C felonies.4
[2] We affirm.
Issues [3] Flynn raises the following two restated issues:
I. Whether the trial court committed reversible error when it admitted into evidence Flynn’s recorded statement to police.
II. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions.
Facts and Procedural History [4] On October 27, 2015, Deputy Neil Lachmund (“Dep. Lachmund”) of the
LaPorte County Sheriff’s Department responded to a domestic disturbance
1 Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a)(1) (2009). 2 I.C. § 35-42-4-9(a)(1) (2010). 3 I.C. § 35-46-1-3 (2011). 4 I.C. § 35-46-1-3 (2012).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 2 of 18 involving A.F. and one of her sisters. A.F. was so upset that Dep. Lachmund
asked her older sister R.F., born May 16, 1996, to accompany them to the
Sheriff’s Department. During the drive, Dep. Lachmund overheard R.F.
speaking to her twin sister, D.F., on her cellular telephone. He heard R.F. state
that she “might have to bring up the other stuff.” Tr. Vol. II at 72. At the
Sheriff’s Department, Detective Jennifer Rhine-Walker (“Det. Rhine-Walker”)
spoke to R.F. alone at one point. R.F. disclosed to Det. Rhine-Walker that
“there was sexual abuse going on in the home” involving her and her twin
sister, but they did not want to report it at that time. Id. at 81.
[5] About an hour and a half later, R.F. approached Det. Rhine-Walker and told
the detective that R.F.’s sister, D.F., was on her way to the Sheriff’s
Department and that she and D.F. were willing to file a report. Both R.F. and
D.F. gave the police statements that their father, Flynn, had sexually abused
them. The police also conducted forensic interviews of the twins’ younger
sisters who stated they had not witnessed any abuse. Two days later, at the
request of the police, Flynn drove himself and another daughter, S.F., to the
Sheriff’s Department to speak with the detectives. Upon his arrival, Flynn was
taken into an interview room and was advised of, and waived, his Miranda
rights. Flynn agreed to speak with Det. Rhine-Walker, and that interview
began at approximately 10:50 a.m.
[6] During the October 29 interview with Det. Rhine-Walker, Flynn initially
denied that he had ever had any sexual contact with his daughters. Det. Rhine-
Walker paused the interview at 12:04 p.m., at which time she offered Flynn a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 3 of 18 beverage and he requested coffee. State’s Ex. 1. Det. Rhine-Walker resumed
the interview at 12:08 p.m., and a sheriff’s employee brought Flynn coffee. Id.
Flynn stated to Det. Rhine-Walker that he was “starting to get sick now”
because it made him “sick just to think about” the allegations. 5 State’s Ex. 1 at
12:08:30. Later, Det. Rhine-Walker again paused the interview for almost one
hour, from 12:21 p.m. to 1:20 p.m., during which time Flynn briefly left the
interview room twice. Id.
[7] At 1:20 p.m., Detective Patrick Cicero (“Det. Cicero”) entered the interview
room and, with Flynn’s unsolicited help, moved the table to the side of the
room. Det. Cicero introduced himself and moved his chair closer to Flynn’s
chair, so that they were facing each other. Det. Cicero questioned Flynn about
Flynn’s sexual encounters with his twin daughters, R.F. and D.F., using
different interrogation techniques, such as trust-building techniques and reading
body language. At various points during the interview, Det. Cicero placed his
hand on Flynn’s knee, held Flynn’s hand, and hugged Flynn. At various
points, Flynn leaned toward Det. Cicero, grasped Det. Cicero’s hand, and put
his forehead up against Det. Cicero’s forehead. Several times throughout the
interview, Flynn began to cry. At approximately 2:40 p.m., Det. Cicero stated,
5 Although Flynn contends that Det. Rhine-Walker offered him a garbage can when he told her he “was going to get sick,” Appellant’s Br. at 14, he does not cite to the point in the interview where those statements were made, and we are unable to locate such statements in State’s Exhibits 1 or 1A.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 4 of 18 “Let me get you something to drink, you want something to eat?” Id. at
2:39:44. Flynn replied, “No.” Id.
[8] Flynn admitted to Det. Cicero that he had sexual intercourse and oral and anal
sex on multiple occasions with both of his biological twin daughters when they
were between the ages of fifteen and eighteen years old. Flynn stated that R.F.
and D.F. had initiated each of the sexual encounters. Flynn described in detail
six sexual encounters, three with each daughter. Flynn’s descriptions of the
times and places of most of the encounters matched R.F.’s and D.F.’s prior
descriptions of the encounters. At approximately 4:00 p.m., Det. Cicero stated,
“let’s get some coffee, are you hungry?” Id. at 4:00:25. Flynn said, “No,” and
Det. Cicero left the room. Id. At approximately 4:05 p.m., Det. Cicero
returned to the interview room with a coffee and a cookie for Flynn, and he
encouraged Flynn to eat. Det. Cicero concluded the interview at approximately
5:30 p.m.
[9] The State charged Flynn with child molesting, as a Class A felony; two counts
of sexual misconduct with a minor, as Class B felonies; two counts of incest, as
Class B felonies; and two counts of incest, as Class C felonies. Flynn moved to
suppress the video/audio recording of the October 29, 2015 interview of him
(hereinafter, “the recording”) by detectives Rhine-Walker and Cicero, and the
trial court held a suppression hearing on October 3, 2016.
[10] Det. Cicero testified at the suppression hearing that he was aware that Flynn
had signed a form acknowledging his Miranda rights and waiving those rights.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 5 of 18 He testified that, in interviewing Flynn, he had used interrogation techniques
designed to elicit confessions, which he had learned in his police training and
used in his fourteen years of police experience. These techniques involved
removing physical barriers—such as the table—between him and the
interviewee, getting “up close and personal” to the interviewee, making the
interviewee believe he is a victim of society, minimizing the interviewee’s
responsibility for his actions, using deception to make the interviewee believe
his actions were not that bad, and assuring the interviewee that it will be better
for the interviewee if he cooperates. Tr. Vol. II at 11. Det. Cicero stated that
these techniques worked in his interview of Flynn. He testified that he never
hurt or threatened Flynn and never promised Flynn any particular outcome,
should he cooperate and/or confess. Det. Cicero testified that Flynn at no time
indicated that he did not want to speak to Det. Cicero or that he wanted an
attorney.
[11] Det. Rhine-Walker also testified at the suppression hearing. She stated that,
prior to interviewing Flynn on October 29, she read him his Miranda rights and
he signed the form waiving those rights. She stated that Flynn agreed to speak
with her and at no time did he invoke his Miranda rights, refuse to speak, or
request an attorney. Det. Rhine-Walker testified that Flynn left the interview
room at one point to use the restroom. She testified that Flynn had two cups of
coffee and a cookie during the interview.
[12] Flynn testified at the suppression hearing that his hypoglycemia “was kicking
in” during the October 29 interview because he had not eaten in twenty-four
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 6 of 18 hours. Id. at 33. He testified that hypoglycemia sometimes caused his thought
process to be cloudy.
[13] The trial court denied the motion to suppress. The court stated it would not
address the issue of Flynn’s alleged diminished capacity due to his alleged
hypoglycemia because that was a fact question for the jury. However, the trial
judge stated that he saw Det. Cicero’s interviewing techniques “as trust-
building,” and that he saw no indications in the recording “of discomfort or
protestations from [Flynn].” Tr. Vol. II at 40. The court also noted that “not
only was Detective Cicero establishing trust and providing comfort, but also
that the Defendant a[t] some points indicated that he wanted Detective Cicero
to comfort him.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 113.
[14] Flynn’s jury trial took place on October 11 through 13, 2016. The recording of
the October 29, 2015 interview of Flynn was admitted into evidence without
objection, Tr. Vol. II at 91, and the parties stipulated to the admission of a
redacted version of the statement, as contained in State’s Exhibit 1A, id. at 181.
The recording was published to the jury.
[15] Det. Rhine-Walker testified at trial that, after Flynn was arrested, R.F.
participated in two visits with Flynn at the LaPorte County Jail, both of which
were video recorded. During the first visit, R.F. and her sister, C.F., were
present, and R.F. spoke with Flynn. Det. Rhine-Walker testified that when she
viewed the video, she heard Flynn ask R.F. to change her story. Det. Rhine-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 7 of 18 Walker also testified that Flynn made a similar request of R.F. when she visited
the second time.
[16] Det. Cicero also testified at trial regarding his October 29, 2015, interview of
Flynn. Det. Ciero’s testimony regarding the interrogation techniques he used
was similar to the testimony he gave at the suppression hearing.
[17] R.F. testified at trial that Flynn began to sexually abuse her when they moved
to LaCrosse and she was thirteen years old. She described to the jury in great
detail four separate events of Flynn sexually abusing her. The first incident
occurred when R.F. was thirteen. R.F. gave a detailed account of Flynn
pushing and smacking her and forcing her to have sexual intercourse with him
in her bedroom while the rest of the family was away from the home. Flynn
told R.F. she “couldn’t tell nobody,” and R.F. complied with Flynn’s command
because she was scared. Id. at 125.
[18] R.F. also testified in detail about the second incident of sexual abuse that
occurred when she was fifteen. At that time, Flynn accosted R.F. in the garage
and forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. R.F. also gave detailed
testimony about a third incident of sexual abuse that also occurred when she
was fifteen. On that occasion, Flynn was alone in the home with R.F. and D.F.
and he told them both to “strip.” Id. at 130-31. When R.F. and D.F. tried “to
fight against him,” he said, “I can make your sisters disappear.” Id. at 131.
Flynn then had sexual intercourse with D.F. and put his finger in R.F.’s vagina.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 8 of 18 [19] R.F. testified in detail about a fourth evening when Flynn called R.F. into his
bedroom, pushed her onto his bed, pulled her clothes off, and put his penis into
her anus, causing R.F. a great deal of pain. R.F. testified that Flynn also forced
her to have sexual intercourse with him on other occasions that she could not
remember, and he repeatedly ordered her not to tell anyone about the sexual
abuse. She stated that the last incident of sexual abuse occurred in August of
2013, when she was seventeen years old.
[20] D.F. also testified at the jury trial. She gave detailed accounts of five separate
instances of Flynn’s sexual abuse of her. D.F. testified that the first instance
occurred in her bedroom in LaPorte when she was fourteen years old and Flynn
forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. D.F. described in detail a
second incident that occurred when she was fifteen and at home sick with
pneumonia. On that occasion, Flynn accosted her in her bedroom and again
forced her to have sexual intercourse with him. D.F. testified that she was
crying, as she did every time Flynn sexually abused her.
[21] D.F. testified in detail about a third instance of Flynn’s sexual abuse of her
when she was fifteen years old. On that occasion, Flynn forced D.F. to submit
to anal sex, which she testified made her feel like she “was being torn open.”
Id. at 169. D.F. also told the jury in detail about a fourth incident in which
Flynn forced D.F. to have sexual intercourse with him in the garage, and a fifth
occurrence when Flynn forced her to have sexual intercourse with him in their
basement when D.F. was sixteen. D.F. testified that Flynn sexually abused her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 9 of 18 two to three times every other week, and the abuse did not cease until she
moved out of the house when she was eighteen years old.
[22] Flynn also testified at his jury trial and denied all of R.F.’s and D.F.’s
allegations. Flynn testified that he is hypoglycemic and did not have enough to
eat on the day he was interviewed by the police. He testified that not having
sleep and food “can affect [his] judgment.” Id. at 219. He stated that
“everything was just white” during the police interview, and he was in his “own
personal little world” at that time. Id. at 220. He said that Det. Cicero
“invaded [his] private space a little bit” and “that was kind of what set [him]
off.” Id. Flynn testified that “some of those things that [he was] telling
Detective Cicero” related to some of his past girlfriends. Id. at 220-21. And
Flynn testified that it made him “feel very, very uncomfortable” when Det.
Cicero “got really close in [his] personal space.” Id. at 221-22.
[23] The jury found Flynn guilty as charged on all counts. On December 1, 2016,
the trial court sentenced Flynn to thirty-eight years for the Class A felony child
molesting, fourteen years for each of the two counts of Class B felony sexual
misconduct with a minor, four years for each of the two counts of Class B
felony incest, and four years for each of the two counts of Class C felony incest.
The court ordered all of the counts to be served concurrently except for one
count of Class B felony sexual misconduct with a minor, which was to be
served consecutively to the other counts. The result is an aggregate sentence of
fifty-two years. This appeal ensued.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 10 of 18 Discussion and Decision Admission of Flynn’s Confession [24] Flynn maintains that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress and
admitting into evidence his October 29, 2015 statement to the police, which
included his confession to sexually abusing his daughters. Rather than taking
an interlocutory appeal of the denial of his motion to suppress, Flynn proceeded
to a complete jury trial. However, Flynn failed to object at trial to the
admission of his recorded statement to the police. “It is well-established that a
motion to suppress is insufficient to preserve an error for appeal. … Instead, a
defendant must reassert his objection at trial contemporaneously with the
introduction of the evidence to preserve the error.” King v. State, 991 N.E.2d
612, 617 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (citations omitted); see also Wright v. State, 593
N.E.2d 1192, 1194 (Ind. 1992) (abrogated on other grounds by Fajardo v. State,
859 N.E.2d 1201, 1206-07 (Ind. 2007)). Because Flynn failed to make a
contemporaneous objection to the admission of his statement at trial, he has
waived this issue for appeal.
[25] Waiver notwithstanding, we find no error in the trial court’s ruling.
The decision to admit the defendant’s statements is a matter of discretion of the trial court after considering the totality of the circumstances. When reviewing a challenge to the trial court’s decision, we do not reweigh the evidence but instead examine the record for substantial, probative evidence of voluntariness. It is the State’s burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant voluntarily waived his rights, and that the defendant’s confession was voluntarily given. Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 11 of 18 Miller v. State, 770 N.E.2d 763, 767 (Ind. 2002) (quotations and citations
omitted). When reviewing a trial court’s ruling that a statement was made
voluntarily, numerous factors may be considered as within the totality of the
circumstances. Such factors include whether the statement was the result of
police coercion; the length, location, and continuity of a police interrogation;
and the defendant’s maturity, education, physical condition, and mental health.
Id.
[26] Flynn contends that his statement was coerced by Det. Cicero’s interrogation
tactics.6 In particular, he maintains Det. Cicero’s “physical contact” with Flynn
rendered Flynn unable “to resist [Det. Cicero’s] questions,” although he does
not state why that was so. Appellant’s Br. at 15. However, interrogation
techniques such as “good cop/bad cop,” trust-building, “providing a morally
acceptable answer” to the interviewee, and “blaming the victim … do not
necessarily create an involuntary statement.” Wilkes v. State, 917 N.E.2d 675,
681 (Ind. 2009) (citing Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 821, 824 (Ind. 2002)). Rather,
the court must weigh such techniques against the totality of the circumstances.
6 Flynn also contends that his statement was not voluntary because he was incapacitated by his hypoglycemia. However, factors related to diminished capacity “do not render a self-incriminating statement involuntary per se and generally go to the weight that should be accorded the statement and not to its admissibility.” Crain v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1223, 1232 (Ind. 2000) (citing Battles v. State, 688 N.E.2d 1230, 1233 (Ind. 1997)). Clearly, the jury did not find Flynn’s claim of diminished capacity to be credible, and we will not reweigh witness credibility or the evidence on appeal. Miller, 770 N.E.2d at 767.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 12 of 18 [27] Thus, in Wilkes v. State, for example, our Supreme Court held the confession
was voluntary where, although the interrogating detective insisted the
defendant remembered the crimes and supplied the defendant with some
details, the defendant also supplied his own details, the defendant had been
advised of his Miranda rights and signed a waiver of those rights, the
interrogation lasted five hours, and the defendant was provided with cigarettes
and food. Id.; see also Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 821, 824-25 (Ind. 2002)
(holding that police deception in the interview weighed against voluntariness
but was not the dispositive factor where the totality of the circumstances
showed the defendant had signed a waiver of his rights, indicated he
understood those rights, did not ask for an attorney, and was not intoxicated,
and where there was an absence of threats or force in the interrogation).
[28] Here, the trial court reviewed the video/audio recording of the interview and
determined that Det. Cicero’s interviewing techniques were merely “trust-
building,” and that he saw no indications in the recording that Flynn was
uncomfortable or protested the physical contact. Tr. Vol. II at 40. On the
contrary, the court noted that Flynn “a[t] some points indicated that he wanted
Detective Cicero to comfort him.” Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 113. Moreover,
Flynn was read his Miranda warnings and signed a waiver of them; he did not
ask for an attorney; he was not intoxicated or incoherent; he was not threatened
or harmed; and he was repeatedly offered food and beverages. Thus, the
totality of the circumstances indicated that Flynn’s statement was voluntarily
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 13 of 18 given. His contentions to the contrary are merely requests that we reweigh the
evidence, which we will not do. Miller, 770 N.E.2d at 767.
Sufficiency of the Evidence [29] Flynn challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Our
standard of review of the sufficiency of the evidence is well-settled:
When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence needed to support a criminal conviction, we neither reweigh evidence nor judge witness credibility. Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003, 1005 (Ind. 2009). “We consider only the evidence supporting the judgment and any reasonable inferences that can be drawn from such evidence.” Id. We will affirm if there is substantial evidence of probative value such that a reasonable trier of fact could have concluded the defendant was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Id.
Clemons v. State, 996 N.E.2d 1282, 1285 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
Moreover, “[a] conviction may be based on circumstantial evidence alone so
long as there are reasonable inferences enabling the factfinder to find the
defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Lawrence v. State, 959 N.E.2d
385, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (citation omitted), trans. denied.
[30] To support Flynn’s conviction of child molesting, as a Class A felony, the State
was required to prove that Flynn was over twenty-one years of age and, with a
child under age fourteen, knowingly or intentionally performed sexual
intercourse. I.C. §35-42-4-3(a)(1). “Sexual intercourse” is defined as “any
penetration of the female sex organ by the male sex organ.” I.C. § 35-31.5-2-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 14 of 18 302. The penetration element may be proven by evidence of any penetration of
the female sex organ, including external genitalia. See, e.g., Morales v. State, 19
N.E.3d 292, 298 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied. “To sustain a conviction
for child molesting or incest, proof of the ‘slightest penetration’ of the female
sex organ … is sufficient,” and penetration may be “inferred from
circumstantial evidence.” Mastin v. State, 966 N.E.2d 197, 202 (Ind. Ct. App.
2012) (quoting Dinger v. State, 540 N.E.2d 587, 590 (Ind. 1990)), trans. denied.
[31] It is undisputed that Flynn was over age twenty-one at the time of the crimes.
And R.F. provided detailed testimony describing Flynn forcing her to have
sexual intercourse with him when she was thirteen years old. R.F.’s testimony
was sufficient evidence to sustain Flynn’s child molesting conviction. See
Amphonephong v. State, 32 N.E.3d 825, 832 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (quoting Carter
v. State, 754 N.E.2d 877, 880 (Ind. 2001)) (“‘[a] molested child’s uncorroborated
testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction.’”); see also, Hoglund v. State, 962
N.E.2d 1230, 1238-39 (Ind. 2012) (“The testimony of a sole child witness is
sufficient to sustain a conviction for molestation.”). 7
[32] To support Flynn’s two convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor, as
Class B felonies, the State was required to prove that Flynn was over twenty-
one years of age and, with a child at least fourteen years of age but less than
sixteen years of age, performed sexual intercourse. I.C. § 35-42-4-9(a)(1). Both
7 Thus, to the extent Flynn asserts that there must be “physical evidence” of the sexual intercourse, Appellant’s Br. at 15, he is mistaken.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 15 of 18 R.F. and D.F. testified in detail that Flynn forced them to have sexual
intercourse with him when they were fifteen years old.8 That testimony, alone,
was sufficient evidence of two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor.
Amphonephong, 32 N.E.3d 832. Moreover, Flynn admitted in his October 29
statement that he had sexual intercourse with both R.F. and D.F. on multiple
occasions when they were between the ages of fifteen and eighteen years old.
And Det. Rhine-Walker testified that, during recorded jail visits, Flynn had
twice asked R.F. to change her testimony.
[33] To support Flynn’s two convictions of incest, as Class B felonies, the State was
required to prove that Flynn was over eighteen years of age and, with a person
less than sixteen years of age who Flynn knew was related to him biologically
as a child, engaged in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct. I.C. § 35-
46-1-3(a) (2011). “Deviate sexual conduct” includes “the penetration of the sex
organ or anus of a person by an object,” Indiana Code Section 35-41-1-9(2)
(2011),9 and a finger is “an object” within the meaning of the statute. See Gasper
v. State, 833 N.E.2d 1036, 1044 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (citing Stewart v. State, 555
N.E.2d 121, 126 (Ind. 1990)), trans. denied. It is undisputed that Flynn is R.F.’s
and D.F.’s biological father and that he was aware of that fact. R.F. testified
that Flynn put his finger in her vagina when she was fifteen years old, and D.F.
8 R.F. testified that Flynn had sexual intercourse with her in the garage when she was fifteen years old, and D.F. testified that Flynn had sexual intercourse with her in her bedroom when she was fourteen years old. 9 The current incest statute replaces the term “deviate sexual conduct” with “other sexual conduct.” I.C. § 35-46-1-3 (effective July 1, 2014).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 16 of 18 testified that Flynn had sexual intercourse with her when she was fifteen years
old and at home sick with pneumonia. That testimony was sufficient evidence
to support the two counts of incest as Class B felonies. Amphonephong, 32
N.E.3d 832.
[34] Finally, to support Flynn’s two convictions of incest, as Class C felonies, the
State was required to prove that Flynn was over eighteen years of age and, with
a person who Flynn knew was related to him biologically as a child, engaged in
sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct. I.C. § 35-46-1-3(a) (2012).
“Deviate sexual conduct” includes an act involving “a sex organ of one person
and the mouth or anus of another person.” I.C. § 35-41-1-9(1) (2011). Both
R.F. and D.F. testified in detail about occasions when Flynn forced them to
submit to anal sex. That testimony was sufficient to support the two
convictions of incest as Class C felonies. Amphonephong, 32 N.E.3d 832.
Conclusion [35] Flynn waived his challenge to the admission of his recorded statement by
failing to make a contemporaneous objection to its admission at trial. Waiver
notwithstanding, the trial court did not err in admitting that statement as the
totality of the circumstances indicate that the statement was voluntarily given.
And the State provided sufficient evidence to sustain Flynn’s convictions; his
protestations to the contrary are merely requests that we reweigh the evidence,
which we will not do.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 17 of 18 [36] Affirmed.
Crone, J., and Brown, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 46A05-1704-CR-863 | June 15, 2018 Page 18 of 18