MEMORANDUM DECISION Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any FILED court except for the purpose of establishing Jun 13 2017, 6:48 am
the defense of res judicata, collateral CLERK Indiana Supreme Court estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Matthew J. McGovern Curtis T. Hill, Jr. Anderson, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Larry D. Allen Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jerry Coop, June 13, 2017 Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. 22A01-1610-CR-2376 v. Appeal from the Floyd Superior Court State of Indiana, The Honorable Susan L. Orth, Appellee-Plaintiff. Judge Trial Court Cause No. 22D01-1506-F1-1121
Najam, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 1 of 19 Statement of the Case [1] Jerry Coop appeals his four convictions for child molesting, following a jury
trial, and his ensuing 120-year sentence. Coop raises five issues for our review,
which we restate as the following four issues:
1. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it permitted the State to introduce certain testimony and exhibits.
2. Whether the prosecutor committed misconduct.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it found an aggravating circumstance during sentencing.
4. Whether Coop’s 120-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses and his character.
[2] We affirm Coop’s convictions and sentence.
Facts and Procedural History [3] Between February of 2014 and April of 2015, Coop repeatedly molested R.M.
and H.M., who were friends of Coop’s minor daughter and between the ages of
ten and twelve at the time. Coop molested the two girls as they stayed
overnight at his house during sleepovers with Coop’s daughter. Another friend,
S.G., also frequently stayed the night with the girls.
[4] S.G. and Coop’s minor son, K.C., observed Coop having intercourse with R.M.
and H.M. and also engaging the two girls in oral sex. S.G. reported her Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 2 of 19 observations to a school counsellor, and all three girls and K.C. thereafter
underwent forensic interviews. Initially, the children, except S.G., denied the
accusations. However, K.C. later stated that he saw Coop having intercourse
with the two girls and performing oral sex on them.
[5] R.M. and H.M. later also confirmed S.G.’s report. According to R.M., Coop
would give her a pill before bedtime to help her sleep. However, on more than
one occasion, she woke up with Coop on top of her, touching her, or “inside of
[her].” Tr. Vol. 2 at 215. H.M. described similar experiences: shortly before
bedtime, Coop would give her a pill, which caused her to “black out.” Id. at
128. Nonetheless, on more than one occasion, H.M. woke up with Coop “on
top of [her],” touching her, or “inside of [her].” Id. at 130-31.
[6] Both girls stayed at Coop’s house frequently: R.M. stayed there about three
weeks each month and had her own closet and bed; H.M. stayed there most
weekends. Coop would play games with the girls, take them shopping, and buy
them gifts, which included buying a laptop for R.M. R.M. and H.M. both
described Coop as “a father figure” to them. Id. at 133, 203.
[7] R.M. and H.M. submitted to physical examinations. The medical examiner
observed no physical signs of “acute or chronic trauma” to either girl’s genitals
but did note that both girls tested positive for Gardnerella Vaginalis, a bacterial
infection that can be, but is not always, transmitted by sexual means. Tr. Vol. 3
at 60, 65. Coop submitted to a test for Gardnerella Vaginalis and tested
negative. However, Gardnerella Vaginalis “is not typically found in males”
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 3 of 19 and “[a] negative result does not rule out . . . Gardnerella” in the tested subject.
Id. at 142.
[8] The State arrested Coop and charged him with multiple offenses of child
molesting. Thereafter, Coop waived his Miranda rights and admitted that he
would sleep with the girls and give them medication prior to bedtime. Coop
further asserted that one of the girls once “jumped onto his lap . . . and . . .
straddled him like a stripper.” Id. at 126 (quotation marks omitted). Coop
further stated that “one of the girls” had entered his room once while he was
naked and then ran out of the room. Id. He otherwise denied any physical
involvement with the girls.
[9] At his ensuing jury trial, S.G., K.C., R.M., and H.M. each testified against
Coop. The investigating officer, Floyd County Sheriff’s Department Detective
George Schultz, and the forensic interviewer, Rebecca Sanders, also testified.
In particular, Sanders testified as follows on direct examination:
Q. Were you here today when [R.M. and H.M.] testified?
A. No, I wasn’t.
Q. Would it surprise you that either one of them has told us more?
A. Oh, no, not at all.
Q. Should we be worried about that?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 4 of 19 A. . . . I would not be worried at all about that.
Q. . . . why?
A. . . . [K]ids disclose in stages and it’s just not uncommon that it all doesn’t come out the first time they talk. . . .
***
Q. So, the changing stories is not uncommon?
A. No, but . . . even changing is not necessarily the word. Evolving, . . . fluid. You know, . . . these things develop. It’s not necessarily that they change. They . . . evolve.
Id. at 42-43. Following that testimony, on cross-examination Coop’s counsel
questioned Sanders on whether the children might have been told what to say
by their parents and whether Sanders discussed with the children apparent
inconsistencies between their statements to her. After cross-examination, a
juror submitted the following question to Sanders, which she was permitted to
answer without objection:
Q. . . . [D]id you ever feel like the kids had talked between themselves?
A. Well, they told . . . me they talked between themselves in regards to [S.G.] talking to them about what she had seen and them talking to her about what they remembered happening. . . . [S.G.] told [H.M.] what she saw and . . . [H.M.] kind of said, like I don’t want to talk about it. . . . [S]o I mean they told me they talked to each other. I didn’t get the feeling, if the question is,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 5 of 19 did they get together to get their statements straight, absolutely not, because . . . they weren’t identical, you know, I mean these are kids. Adults have trouble keeping lies straight. They can’t lie the same way three times. These are kids so they certainly can’t. . . . [A]nd . . . they didn’t come in there and parrot the same interview each time they came in, each child was individual. So I didn’t get that impression at all.
Id. at 52-53.
[10] During closing statements, Coop’s counsel argued that the children were not
being truthful in their accusations and that he “just want[s] to know the truth
here.” Id. at 183. In response, the prosecutor stated as follows during his
rebuttal:
I think [defense counsel] did a pretty good job. He sort of started off with . . . the search for the truth. Remember him saying that, as if, well, you know, he’s sort of deciding what the truth is. That was an, I’m here to determine whether this is true or not true. Um, is that his job? No. His job is to represent his client. He’s not here to search for the truth. . . . [T]he Prosecutor has a little bit different duty. That’s why I dismissed one of the counts. Okay. A little bit of a different job here. So he certainly has to advocate for his client and he should, not discounting that. But to think that that’s his job is to look for the truth, no, his job is to represent his client.
Id. at 199.
[11] Thereafter, the jury found Coop guilty of two counts of child molesting, each as
a Level 1 felony, as charged. The jury also found Coop guilty of child
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 6 of 19 molesting, as a Level 4 felony, and child molesting, as a Class C felony,1 which
were lesser-included offenses to the offenses charged. Following a sentencing
hearing, the court found the harm to the victims and Coop’s abuse of a position
of trust to be aggravating circumstances, and the court sentenced Coop to an
aggregate term of 120 years in the Department of Correction. This appeal
ensued.
Discussion and Decision Issue One: Alleged Fundamental Errors
[12] On appeal, Coop first asserts that the trial court committed fundamental error
when it permitted the State to introduce certain testimony and exhibits. As he
did not object to the admission of the testimony in the trial court, we review
Coop’s arguments for fundamental error. See Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670,
678 (Ind. 2013). The fundamental error exception is “extremely narrow” and
“applies only when the error constitutes a blatant violation of basic principles,
the harm or potential for harm is substantial, and the resulting error denies the
defendant fundamental due process.” Id. (quotation marks omitted). That is,
the appellant “must now prove fundamental error by showing the alleged
violation was so prejudicial to his rights as to make a fair trial impossible.”
Griffith v. State, 59 N.E.3d 947, 957 (Ind. 2016) (quotation marks and brackets
1 For this offense, the State alleged that Coop had committed child molesting, as a Class A felony, for his molestation of R.M. in February of 2014, which was prior to our criminal code’s change in felony offenses from classes to levels.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 7 of 19 omitted). “This exception is available only in egregious circumstances.”
Halliburton, 1 N.E.3d at 678 (quotation marks omitted).
[13] Coop argues that Sanders’ testimony on direct examination was impermissible
vouching testimony because she stated that the jury should “not be worried”
about changes R.M. and H.M. made to their stories of what happened as time
passed. See Tr. Vol. 3 at 42. He also argues that Sanders impermissibly
asserted, in response to a jury question following cross-examination, that the
children “absolutely [did] not” “get together to get their statements straight.”
See id. at 52-53. And he avers that the State impermissibly presented “drumbeat
repetition” of R.M. and H.M.’s accusations through other sources—namely,
Detective Schultz prior to the testimony of R.M. and H.M., Sanders afterwards,
and in the admission of two exhibits—to bolster its case. Appellant’s Br. at 26.
[14] We first consider Sanders’ alleged vouching testimony. Indiana Evidence Rule
704(b) generally prohibits witnesses from testifying as to whether another
witness has testified truthfully. However, as the Indiana Supreme Court has
made clear:
the subtle distinction between an expert’s testimony that a child has or has not been coached versus an expert’s testimony that the child did or did not exhibit any “signs or indicators” of coaching is insufficient to guard against the dangers that such testimony will constitute impermissible vouching . . . . Nevertheless, once a child’s credibility is called into question[,] proper expert testimony may be appropriate. . . . We thus align ourselves with those jurisdictions that permit testimony about the signs of coaching and whether a child exhibited such signs or has or has
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 8 of 19 not been coached, provided that the defendant has opened the door to such testimony.
Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985, 991-92 (Ind. 2015) (emphasis removed)
(quotation marks and footnote omitted).
[15] We cannot say that the trial court committed fundamental error when it
permitted Sanders’ testimony. First, Sanders’ testimony on direct examination
was not vouching testimony. Sanders did not testify, directly or indirectly, as to
the children’s credibility. Rather, she explained that it is normal child behavior
to disclose information incrementally and to have a child’s story “develop” as
her memory becomes more clear through prior disclosures. Tr. Vol. 3 at 42-43.
This is testimony about child behavior generally and is not testimony vouching
for the credibility of R.M. or H.M. in particular. See, e.g., Carter v. State, 31
N.E.3d 17, 29-30 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. denied.
[16] Second, Sanders’ testimony in response to the juror’s question, insofar as it may
have been vouching for another witness’s credibility, was permissible under
Sampson as Coop had opened the door. See 38 N.E.3d at 991-92. During
Sanders’ cross-examination, Coop’s counsel attacked R.M. and H.M.’s
credibility, and he questioned whether Sanders had investigated changes in the
children’s stories and whether they had discussed their stories with others. It
was after that line of inquiry that the juror question was submitted to Sanders,
which she answered without objection. As her testimony was permissible
under Sampson, its admission was not error, let alone fundamental error.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 9 of 19 [17] Finally, having reviewed the whole of the record that was before the jury, we
cannot agree that any error in the admission of the now-challenged “drumbeat”
evidence of Detective Schultz’s testimony, Sanders’ testimony, and two relevant
and admissible exhibits was so egregious that it made a fair trial impossible. See
Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 957. Indeed, the Indiana Supreme Court has held, under
our standard of review for properly preserved issues, that improperly admitted
statements that might bolster a witness’s credibility but have “only [a] minor
impact on the jury” do not merit reversal. Craig v. State, 630 N.E.2d 207, 211-
12 (Ind. 1994). And that is the case with the now-challenged “drumbeat”
evidence—this evidence might have supported the victims’ testimony but it did
not elaborate on that testimony. Accordingly, we also find no fundamental
error in the admission of that evidence.
Issue Two: Alleged Prosecutorial Misconduct
[18] Coop next asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct when, in his
closing rebuttal, he “improperly and unfairly distinguished between the roles of
defense counsel and the prosecution.” Appellant’s Br. at 17. We review a
prosecutorial misconduct claim using a two-step analysis. State v. Taylor, 49
N.E.3d 1019, 1029 (Ind. 2016). First, there must be misconduct. Id. Second,
the misconduct must have placed the defendant in a position of grave peril. Id.
The gravity of the peril is measured “by the probable persuasive effect of the
misconduct on the jury’s decision rather than the degree of impropriety of the
conduct.” Id. And, again, as Coop has not preserved this issue for review with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 10 of 19 a proper objection at trial, on appeal he must show that the alleged error made a
fair trial impossible. Griffith, 59 N.E.3d at 957.
[19] Here, Coop asserts that the prosecutor committed misconduct and placed Coop
in grave peril, and made a fair trial impossible, when the prosecutor told the
jury that defense counsel’s “job is to represent his client,” “not . . . to search for
the truth,” while the prosecutor has “a different job here.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 199.
While we do not condone such statements, nonetheless we hold that the
prosecutor’s comments did not make a fair trial impossible.
[20] In Ryan v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court held:
While “comments that demean opposing counsel, especially in front of a jury, are inappropriate,” Marcum v. State, 725 N.E.2d 852, 859 (Ind. 2000), not all of the allegedly improper comments here are objectionable. “Prosecutors are entitled to respond to allegations and inferences raised by the defense even if the prosecutor’s response would otherwise be objectionable.” Cooper[ v. State], 854 N.E.2d [831, 836 (Ind. 2006)]. Here, the prosecutor used her rebuttal to respond to defense counsel’s closing argument, in which he criticized the quality of the police investigation and then compared famous cases of false accusations such as “the Duke Lacrosse case,” which “supposedly had a full and thorough investigation.” Tr. at 142. Without question, the characterization of defense counsel’s line of argumentation as “how guilty people walk” and a “trick,” is inconsistent with the requirement that lawyers “demonstrate respect for the legal system and for those who serve it, including . . . other lawyers,” see Preamble [5], Ind. Professional Conduct Rules. But the defendant has failed to establish that, under all of the circumstances, such improper comments placed him in a position of grave peril to which he would not have been
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 11 of 19 subjected otherwise. See Cooper, 854 N.E.2d at 835; Marcum, 725 N.E.2d at 859-60. In Marcum, this Court held it could not conclude that comments such as “what this is, is a response to your nonsense,” “Judge I guess we can move the jury out and we can do a quick evidence course here for [defense counsel],” and “He is trying to mislead this jury” affected the jury’s verdict in light of the evidence as a whole. 725 N.E.2d at 858-60. Similarly, in Brock v. State, this Court found that the prosecutor’s statement that defense counsel was “pulling the most low life tricks in this case,” was improper but did not place the defendant in grave peril. 423 N.E.2d 302, 304-05 (Ind. 1981) (noting that defense counsel conceded it was a “rather insignificant” personal matter). This case is less egregious than Marcum and Brock; we find no prosecutorial misconduct.
9 N.E.3d 663, 669-70 (Ind. 2014) (last alteration in original).
[21] Here, the prosecutor’s comments are no worse than those in Ryan, Marcum, or
Brock. And, as in Ryan, the prosecutor made his comments in response to
statements made during defense counsel’s closing statement. In light of the
record as a whole, we conclude that the prosecutor’s comments did not place
Coop in “a position of grave peril to which he would not have been subjected
otherwise.” Id. Accordingly, we conclude that no fundamental error occurred
on this issue.
Issue Three: Finding of Aggravating Factors
[22] We next consider Coop’s argument that the trial court abused its discretion
when it sentenced him. Sentencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of
the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.
Gomilla v. State, 13 N.E.3d 846, 849 (Ind. 2014). An abuse of discretion occurs
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 12 of 19 if the trial court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and
circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable, and actual
deductions to be drawn therefrom. McElfresh v. State, 51 N.E.3d 103, 107 (Ind.
2016). One way in which a trial court may abuse its discretion in sentencing is
by providing reasons for the sentence that are improper as a matter of law.
Gomilla, 13 N.E.3d at 849.
[23] Coop asserts on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion when it
sentenced him because the court found as an aggravating circumstance that
Coop had furnished his victims with sleep aids prior to molesting them.
According to Coop, the trial court’s reliance on this fact was improper as a
matter of law because the jury acquitted Coop of two charges that had been
elevated based on that fact and instead found Coop guilty of lesser-included
offenses on those two counts. See Appellant’s App. Vol. II at 73-74, 96-97.
[24] We cannot agree with Coop’s characterization of the trial court’s sentencing
statement. In sentencing Coop, the court stated described the aggravating
factors it considered significant as follows:
the harm, injury, loss[,] or damage suffered by the victim of the offense was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the commission of the offense. The elements of the offense speak to the physical assault . . . to these children, but not to the emotional ones . . . they have suffered, and continue to suffer today and . . . undoubtedly will suffer in the future . . . . [B]oth girls are in counseling. . . . [B]oth have talked about being isolated today, the isolation that . . . they have. The changes that they’ve had in school. . . . [T]he changes they’ve had in their personal lives and they don’t get the chance to have a normal Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 13 of 19 childhood. . . . [I]t’s difficult to hear a thirteen year old girl tell me that she no longer even wants to try to have friends or to trust others . . . because of her experience with you. . . . [S]o I do find that to be a particular . . . aggravating factor . . . and do give it significant weight.
The other . . . aggravating factor[] . . . is the person was in a position having care, custody[,] or control of the victims . . . . I find this factor to be extremely significant as well. . . . I find that these girls were groomed. That you bought them electronics, iPhones, took them on outings . . . to the parks, to the walking bridge, bought them food, took them out to eat, bought them clothing, . . . and these are girls who, at that time, were lacking in a home structure. I feel that you carefully selected your targets and I think that’s what the evidence clearly showed. That these were young girls seeking attention, seeking acceptance, seeking a safe place. . . . [B]ut instead, you provided them a lair and preyed upon their very innocence. You gave young girls drugs so that you could ensure their compliance and their silence. And I find that to be particularly aggravating.
Tr. Vol. 4 at 31-33 (emphasis added). Coop’s takeaway from the court’s
statement that it improperly relied on Coop drugging his victims is incorrect.
The aggravator in question was Coop’s abuse of his position of trust. The court
commented on Coop drugging his victims as only a small part of its lengthy
explanation as to why it found the fact that Coop had violated his position of
trust over the victims to be a significant aggravating circumstance. As such, the
court did not abuse its discretion and rely on an improper aggravator.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 14 of 19 Issue Four: Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B)
[25] Finally, Coop argues that his 120-year aggregate sentence is inappropriate. As
we have explained:
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits an Indiana appellate court to “revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial court’s decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” We assess the trial court’s recognition or nonrecognition of aggravators and mitigators as an initial guide to determining whether the sentence imposed was inappropriate. Gibson v. State, 856 N.E.2d 142, 147 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006). The principal role of appellate review is to “leaven the outliers.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1225 (Ind. 2008). A defendant must persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review. Roush v. State, 875 N.E.2d 801, 812 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007).
Robinson v. State, 61 N.E.3d 1226, 1228 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016).
[26] Here, again, the trial court identified the following two aggravating factors: the
emotional harm suffered by the victims and Coop’s abuse of his position of trust
over the victims. As a mitigating circumstance, the court noted that Coop had
a minimal criminal history. The court then sentenced Coop to an aggregate
term of 120 years, the maximum possible term for his convictions.
[27] On appeal, Coop argues only that the 120-year sentence is inappropriate
because he “is not the worst of offenders and did not commit the worst of
offenses.” Appellant’s Br. at 43. More specifically, Coop asserts that his lack of
a criminal history reflects well on his character and that he has a low risk of
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 15 of 19 reoffending. He also asserts that “there is nothing about how Coop committed
the charged offenses that makes them more egregious than is already inherent
in the nature of the offenses.” Id. at 45. And Coop avers that consecutive
sentences, in particular, are inappropriate here.
[28] We cannot agree. Coop’s clear abuse of his position of trust over the children
reflects his poor character. Further, the nature and circumstances of that abuse
of his position of trust, and the ongoing emotional harm suffered by his victims,
demonstrates that the nature of Coop’s offenses was deplorable. And
consecutive sentences are not inappropriate where there are multiple victims.
See Serino v. State, 798 N.E.2d 852, 857 (Ind. 2003). Coop committed his
offenses against multiple victims for more than a year and in the presence of
other children. We cannot say that his 120-year sentence is inappropriate.
Conclusion
[29] In sum, we affirm Coop’s convictions and his sentence.
[30] Affirmed.
Bradford, J., concurs.
Riley, J., concurs in part and dissents in part with separate opinion.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 16 of 19 IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jerry Coop, Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No. v. 22A01-1610-CR-2376
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
Riley, Judge, concurring in part and dissenting in part.
[31] Even though I agree with the majority’s decision on the plurality of the issues
raised by Coop, I respectfully dissent from its conclusion that Coop’s sentence
is not inappropriate in light of his offense and his character. I recognize that the
trial court, as affirmed by the majority, sentenced Coop to the maximum
aggregate sentence possible, and that maximum sentences should generally be
reserved for the worst offenses and offenders. See Bacher v. State, 686 N.E.2d
791, 802 (Ind. 1997). However, as this court has previously explained,
If we were to take this language literally, we would reserve the maximum punishment for only the singly most heinous crime…. We should concentrate less on comparing the facts of this case to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 17 of 19 nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant’s character.
Brown v. State, 760 N.E.2d 243, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied.
[32] The record reflects a very limited criminal history, only comprised of charges
unrelated to the instant offenses. Coop had steady employment and was placed
in the low risk category to re-offend. He did not brutalize or harm the victims
in any manner not already inherent in the nature of the offenses. See Fointno v.
State, 487 NE.2d 140, 148 (Ind. 1986) (“a rational sentencing scheme should
punish more severely those who brutalize the victims of their crime.”).
Although the evidence indicated that Coop supplied the victims with sleeping
aids, the jury acquitted him of the offenses that were elevated based upon this
fact and he was only convicted of the lesser included offenses.
[33] While Coop’s offenses are undeniably serious and warrant significant
punishment, the lack of injury or use of physical force in the molestation of the
victims demonstrated that the nature of the offense did not warrant consecutive
sentences. See Laster v. State, 918 N.E.2d 428, 434 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009); see also
Tyler v. State, 903 N.E.2d 463, 469 (Ind. 2009) (revising an enhanced sentence
to the advisory term in part because there was no evidence that the defendant
used physical force on his child molesting victims, nor were the children
physically injured by the molestation). Even though our supreme court has
repeatedly revised the consecutive sentences with regard to a single molestation
victim, I do acknowledge that the second amended Counts I and II involve the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 18 of 19 same victim, while the second amended Counts III and V relate to a different
victim. See, e.g., Harris v. State, 897 N.E.2d 927 (Ind. 2008); Monroe v. State, 886
N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2008). Accordingly, based on Coop’s minimal criminal
history, steady employment, and lack of physical force, I would revise his
sentence to the advisory sentence for each offense, with Counts I and II running
concurrently and Counts III and V running concurrently, and with both sets of
Counts running consecutively to each other, for an aggregate sentence of 36
years.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 22A01-1610-CR-2376 | June 13, 2017 Page 19 of 19