Chastain v. State

165 N.E.3d 589

Benjamen P. CHASTAIN, Appellant-Defendant,

v.STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.

Court of Appeals Case No. 20A-CR-1553

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

FILED March 4, 2021

Attorney for Appellant: R. Thomas Lowe, New Albany, Indiana.

Attorneys for Appellee: Theodore E. Rokita, Attorney General of Indiana, Samuel J. Dayton, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.

Tavitas, Judge.

Case Summary

[1] In this second appeal related to his conviction, Benjamen Chastain appeals his twenty-year sentence for his conviction for child molesting, a Class B felony. After Chastain was convicted of one count of child molesting as a Class A felony and acquitted of another count, Chastain appealed. Because, in a previous opinion, we concluded that the trial court improperly admitted hearsay evidence of Chastain's age, we reversed the trial court and remanded with instructions to vacate Chastain's Class A felony conviction, enter a conviction of child molesting as a Class B felony, and resentence Chastain accordingly.

[2] The trial court then held another sentencing hearing, during which it considered Chastain's age, though unproven at trial, as a "significant" aggravating factor. The trial court further stated that it considered the unproven allegations of sexual misconduct as a "moderating factor" when giving weight to Chastain's lack of criminal history as a mitigating factor. The trial court then sentenced Chastain to the maximum twenty-year sentence, all of which was to be executed in the Department of Correction ("DOC"). Chastain appeals, arguing that: (1) it was an abuse of discretion to consider Chastain's age, when that fact was never determined by a jury; (2) it was an abuse of discretion to consider allegations for which Chastain was either acquitted or never tried; and (3) the sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and Chastain's character. Despite our concerns with the trial court's consideration of allegations of misconduct for which Chastain was acquitted, we cannot say that it abused its discretion. Moreover, we cannot say that Chastain's sentence is inappropriate. Accordingly, we affirm.

Issues

[3] Chastain raises two issues, which we restate as:

I. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when sentencing Chastain.

II. Whether Chastain's sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the crime and his character.

Facts

[4] The facts of this case were detailed in Chastain's first appeal as follows:

As a child, B.L. lived with her mother but spent about every other weekend with her father and stepmother, Angie. Chastain is married to Angie's sister, Amanda. B.L. often spent time with Chastain and Amanda when visiting her father.

On one occasion when B.L. was eight or nine years old, B.L. spent the night with Chastain and Amanda in their trailer. Amanda was pregnant at the time with the couple's first child, who was born July 31, 1999. B.L. fell asleep with the couple in their bed but at some point, Amanda moved to the living room couch because she was not feeling well. Thereafter, B.L. was awakened by Chastain as he placed his hand inside her shorts. B.L. closed her legs together, but Chastain proceeded to put his hand inside B.L.’s underwear and then penetrate her vagina with his finger. B.L. immediately got up and ran into the living room with Amanda for safety. B.L. was unable to wake Amanda, so B.L. remained awake until the sun came up and then ran back to her father's trailer. B.L. was too scared to tell anyone about the incident and thought no one would believe her, so she remained quiet.

Throughout the remainder of her childhood, B.L. made sure to never again be alone with Chastain, and she made it apparent to her family that she did not like Chastain.

In December 2015, allegations arose regarding Chastain recently molesting B.L.’s eleven-year-old half-sister. This resulted in B.L. disclosing her own prior molestation by Chastain to her stepmother. B.L. and her half-sister gave statements to investigators with the Paoli Police Department. Another relative, L.B., also claimed to have been molested by Chastain on one occasion around 2001 or 2002 when she was five or six years old.

On February 23, 2016, the State charged Chastain with two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting. The Class A felony charges involved the allegations by B.L. and L.B., respectively, and the Class C felony involved B.L. No charges were filed by the State with respect to the allegations made by B.L.’s sister. The Class C felony count was later dismissed as being filed outside the statute of limitations.

Chastain's jury trial on the two Class A felony counts commenced on April 16, 2019.

The jury found Chastain guilty of the Class A child molesting count involving B.L. but not guilty of the count involving L.B. At the conclusion of the sentencing hearing on May 28, 2019, the trial court sentenced Chastain to forty years in prison with ten of those years suspended to probation.

Chastain v. State , 144 N.E.3d 732, 732-33 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020).

[5] On appeal, Chastain argued that inadmissible hearsay was used to establish Chastain's date of birth and elevate the offense from a Class B felony to a Class A felony. The State conceded its error, and we reduced Chastain's conviction to a Class B felony and remanded for resentencing. We briefly addressed Chastain's claims regarding two of the aggravating factors because issues would likely arise on remand. In particular, we noted the following:

[W]e agree with Chastain that the following aggravating factor found by the trial court is concerning:

There were other allegations of child abuse. Three victims came forward to accuse the defendant of child abuse. Abusing children appears to have been a pattern of behavior on behalf of the defendant. SeeLockard v. State , 600 N.E.2d 985, 987-88 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992) (uncharged misconduct is a valid sentence aggravator). The Court gave significant weight to this factor.

Appellant's Appendix at 120. Lockard is not applicable here because Chastain did not admit to molesting the other two children. SeeLockard , 600 N.E.2d at 987-88 (holding that trial court did not abuse its discretion by considering defendant's admissions to repeatedly molesting his stepdaughters, though defendant only pled guilty pursuant to a plea agreement to other offenses involving the same victims). More importantly, the jury found Chastain not guilty of the allegations involving L.B., and, therefore, those allegations may not be considered in sentencing him for the molestation of B.L. See McNew v. State , 271 Ind. 214, 391 N.E.2d 607, 612 (1979). With respect to the third alleged victim, we observe that Chastain has not admitted to molesting her, and the State has not filed charges against him based on these allegations. Accordingly, on remand, the trial court should be cautious in its consideration of the uncharged allegations. Cf. Wilkes v. State , 917 N.E.2d 675, 692 (Ind. 2009) (holding that consideration of defendant's admitted sexual activity with child murder victim was not improper because "relevant evidence of another crime is admissible to rebut the defendant's claimed lack of criminal history even if that evidence may not be sufficient to support a conviction"), cert. denied.

Chastain , 144 N.E.3d at 734-35.

[6] On remand, the trial court held a new sentencing hearing. Chastain's mother and father both testified, as did Chastain's wife. The trial court also considered a series of some twenty letters that had been submitted on Chastain's behalf during the first sentencing hearing, including one from Chastain's pastor. The uncontested consensus among the witnesses and those submitting letters was that: (1) Chastain was consistently employed and provided for his wife and children; (2) Chastain was active in his church; (3) life had become significantly more difficult and stressful for Chastain's wife and children since Chastain's incarceration; and (4) Chastain had no formal criminal history. Chastain himself testified that he had not received any disciplinary reports since his incarceration, and the trial court further noted that Chastain's behavior had been impeccable during his approximately three-year-period of pre-trial release.

[7] In explaining its reasons for imposing its sentence, the trial court asserted the following:

I think that the evidence is that the defendant has no prior history of delinquency or criminal activity that has been charged and that the defendant has led a seemingly law abiding life for a substantial period before the commission of the crime. Now my caveat to that however would be that this is an isolated conviction but there has [sic] certainly been other allegations of sexual and improper misconduct and I know that the [Appellate] Court didn't believe that that could be an aggravating circumstance. So[,] I am following the [Appellate] Court's orders but the Court can't ignore that as maybe offsetting somewhat this affirmation of no prior history, no prior history of delinquency or criminal activity. So[,] what is I am going to do is use those allegations that have been made, certainly the jury found one allegation as not guilty. But let's be perfectly honest, the determination of guilt, it's not guilt or innocence. It's not guilty or guilty and whether there was sufficient evidence to [ ] whether the State provided sufficient evidence to overcome the burden of proof which is beyond a reasonable doubt and the jury found that it didn't. But certainly it was an allegation about when she was five or six, my recollection was that her testimony was sparse at times and had difficulty remembering things. So[,] we have to abide by the jury's verdict and evaluation of that and I don't have any, but what I'm saying, I'm trying to explain to you Mr. Chastain is that what the Court is going to do is look at those other allegations, because there was another allegation by

...