Hankins v. State
| Docket Number | 22A-CR-2846 |
| Decision Date | 31 July 2023 |
| Parties | Jason M. Hankins, Appellant-Defendant, v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. |
| Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision is not binding precedent for any court and may be cited only for persuasive value or to establish res judicata, collateral estoppel, or law of the case.
Appeal from the Jackson Circuit Court The Honorable Richard W Poynter, Judge Trial Court Cause No. 36C01-2003-F1-3
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT
Eric J. Massey Brian P. Johnson Banks &Brower, LLC Indianapolis, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Theodore E. Rokita Attorney General of Indiana
Tyler Banks Supervising Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana
[¶1] Jason Hankins appeals his conviction for child molesting, a Level 1 felony. Hankins argues that the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting grooming evidence. Hankins also argues that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish beyond a reasonable doubt that any child molesting occurred when M.H. was below the age of fourteen. We conclude that the grooming evidence was admissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) and that the State presented sufficient evidence to sustain Hankins's conviction for child molesting. Accordingly, we affirm.
[¶2] Hankins raises two issues on appeal, which we revise and restate as:
[¶3] Hankins and Samantha Lederman ("Lederman") were married and had a daughter, M.H., born in January 2004. Hankins and Lederman divorced when M.H. was approximately six years old. As part of the dissolution agreement, M.H. lived with Lederman but spent every other weekend and some holidays with Hankins.
[¶4] From the age of five or six until she was a teenager, M.H. recalled having "bathroom incidents" with Hankins. Tr. Vol II. p. 183. M.H. described these "bathroom incidents" as the "[m]any times" that Hankins would enter the bathroom while she was showering. Id. at 184. M.H. would announce that she was going to the bathroom to take a shower, and Hankins "would walk in, say that he was going to use the bathroom and then just sit in there while [she] was taking a shower." Id.. M.H. would ask Hankins to leave the bathroom, but he refused and would "often" try to talk to her about masturbation while she showered. Id. M.H. described these conversations with her father as being "very uncomfortable." Id. at 186. During these incidents, while M.H. was in the shower, Hankins never pulled back the shower curtain; however, Hankins did see M.H. naked sometimes when M.H. would exit the shower. Hankins also told M.H. that he had "something for [her] if [she] ever wanted to masturbate." Id. at 182.
[¶5] When M.H. was thirteen, she visited Hankins's house in Seymour where he lived with his wife, Shawna Hankins; Shawna's daughter, K.H.; and Hankins's son, C.H. Tommy Darlage, a friend of Hankins, would also stay with the family. Hankins and Shawna slept in a loft bedroom located upstairs, while M.H. slept in a bedroom downstairs.
[¶6] Also beginning at the age of thirteen, Hankins said "multiple times" to M.H. that, "in order for her to be more comfortable with [herself,] [she] needed to become more comfortable with him . . .," so she should remove her clothes before going to bed. Id. at 187. M.H. testified that, although she would normally wear T-shirts and sweatpants to bed, Hankins would request that M.H. not wear a bra to bed. Hankins eventually asked M.H. to remove her underwear whenever she stayed over. This happened "[a]lmost every time [M.H.] went to sleep there." Id. at 190. After requesting M.H. to remove her clothing, Hankins would remain in M.H.'s bedroom while she undressed. Each time, M.H. told Hankins that she did not want to wear less clothing, but Hankins repeatedly responded "that [she] needed to take it off in order to be more comfortable[,] and then he started getting very angry." Id. at 189.
[¶7] Hankins also told M.H. that she "needed to cuddle with him." Id. at 193. Hankins would lay in bed with M.H. in her room and "would tell [her] that [she] needed to take [her] clothes off to be more comfortable." Id. at 191. Hankins would "tell [M.H.] to lay against his side . . . which progressed into more of a spooning position that led [Hankins's] hands to go in places, which then progressed to more." Id. at 194. M.H. testified that Hankins's hands would touch over the top of her clothes on her chest, near her pelvic area, and beneath her clothes. Hankins put his fingers "in and out" of M.H.'s vagina, as well as around the outer portion of M.H.'s vagina. Id. at 196. While doing this, Hankins Id.
[¶8] On the night that Hankins had sexual intercourse with M.H., he talked to her about "being comfortable" with herself and then instructed her to take her clothes off. Id. at 197. Hankins asked M.H. to lay on the bed on her stomach, removed his sweatpants, got into the bed, and penetrated M.H.'s vagina with his penis. Hankins told M.H. that "[the sex] was a part of getting closer [to him]." Id. at 201. M.H. "was terrified" and did not tell anyone what happened at the time. Id.
[¶9] M.H. last saw Hankins around her fifteenth birthday in 2019. At this point, M.H.'s visits with Hankins ended due to an unrelated issue. In December 2019, M.H. was on a trip to Michigan with Lederman, and Lederman noted that M.H.'s "demeanor was completely different." Id. at 151. "[M.H.] was visibly [shaken], her hands were trembling, she was crying, inconsolable, not her normal self." Id. at 152. M.H. then disclosed to her mother Hankins's inappropriate behavior and sexual abuse over the last several years.
[¶10] Lederman sent M.H. to see a counselor in Columbus. After M.H. spoke to the counselor, the counselor contacted the Indiana Department of Child Services. On January 21, 2020, M.H. was interviewed by Forensic Interviewer Kelli Hunckler at Susie's Place Child Advocacy Center in Bloomington. M.H. later spoke with Captain Troy Munson of the Seymour Police Department about Hankins's sexual abuse.
[¶11] On March 31, 2020, the State charged Hankins with Count I, child molesting, a Level 1 felony; Count II incest, a Level 4 felony; and Count III sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 4 felony. On August 17, 2022, the State amended the charges to include "sexual intercourse" in accordance with the statutory language for all offenses charged.
[¶12] On September 6, 2020, at jury trial, M.H. testified that "everything that [Hankins] did to her sexually occurred aged fifteen or younger." Id. at 203. M.H. recalled that the cuddling progressed within four months to sexual intercourse. M.H. was unclear as to when the sexual intercourse occurred. During her deposition, M.H. said the intercourse occurred when she was "about fourteen (14), fifteen (15) maybe, but it's in that time frame." Id. at 220. M.H. later testified that she was "leaning more towards fifteen (15) but [she] could be mistaken." Id. at 221.
[¶13] On September 6, 2020, the jury found Hankins guilty on all counts. On November 2, 2022, the trial court sentenced Hankins as follows: Count I, thirtyeight years at the Indiana Department of Corrections ("DOC"), Count II, ten years in the DOC, and Count III, ten years in the DOC. Count I and II to be served concurrently, and consecutively to Count III. Hankins now appeals.
[¶14] Hankins argues that the trial court committed fundamental error in the admission of grooming evidence under Indiana Rule of Evidence 404(b), thereby depriving him of a fair trial. We disagree.
[¶15] In general, trial courts have wide discretion with respect to the admission of evidence, and our role is to review the trial court's determination for an abuse of that discretion. Combs v. State, 168 N.E.3d 985, 990 (Ind. 2021), cert. denied, 142 S.Ct. 1125 (2022); see also Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096, 1099 (Ind. 2012).
We will reverse only if a ruling is "clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights." Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014).
[¶16] Hankins failed to object to the presentation of grooming evidence at trial; therefore, he must establish that the trial court committed fundamental error by admitting the grooming evidence presented by the State. Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010). A claim that has been waived by a defendant's failure to raise a contemporaneous objection can be reviewed on appeal if the reviewing court determines that a fundamental error occurred. See, e.g., Trice v. State, 766 N.E.2d 1180, 1182 (Ind. 2002). "[A]n error is fundamental if it made a fair trial impossible or was a 'clearly blatant violation[ ] of basic and elementary principles of due process' that presented 'an undeniable and substantial potential for harm.'" Miller v. State, 188 N.E.3d 871, 874 (Ind. 2022) (quoting Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009)). "The fundamental error doctrine serves, in extraordinary circumstances, to permit appellate consideration of a claim of trial error even though there has been a failure to make a proper contemporaneous objection during the course of a trial." Hardley v. State, 905 N.E.2d 399, 402 (Ind. 2009).
[¶17] Indiana Evidence Rule 404(b) provides, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial