Nunley v. Brown

LAWRENCE NUNLEY, Petitioner, v. RICHARD BROWN, Respondent.

No. 2:19-cv-00012-JRS-DLP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA TERRE HAUTE DIVISION

March 30, 2020

Order Denying Petition for a Writ of Habeas Corpus

In his petition for a writ of habeas corpus, Lawrence Nunley challenges his 2008 Harrison County convictions for child molesting and disseminating matter harmful to a minor. For the reasons explained in this Order, Mr. Nunley's petition for a writ of habeas corpus is denied, and the action is dismissed with prejudice. In addition, the Court finds that a certificate of appealability should not issue.

I. Background

District court review of a habeas petition presumes all factual findings of the state court to be correct, absent clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. See 28 U.S.C. § 2254(e)(1); Daniels v. Knight, 476 F.3d 426, 434 (7th Cir. 2007). The Indiana Court of Appeals summarized Mr. Nunley's offense as follows:

Nunley lived with his teenage son and his son's girlfriend, K.S. K.S. sometimes babysat six-year-old A.Y. A.Y.'s mother, T.C., testified A.Y. "loved [K.S.] to death." (Tr. at 534.) On April 13, 2007, A.Y. asked to spend the night at Nunley's residence. When T.C. dropped off A.Y., Nunley told her K.S. was on the way there. T.C. was under the impression that K.S. would be watching A.Y. According to A.Y., K.S. and her boyfriend were there for only a brief time that night.

Sometime during the evening, Nunley called A.Y. back to his bedroom and showed her a pornographic video. A.Y. was wearing a tee shirt and panties. He took off her panties and licked her vagina. He also made her suck on his penis.

The next day, T.C. and R.C. picked up A.Y. After they had been in the car for a few minutes, A.Y. told them she and Nunley had a secret. A.Y. would not say what it was, so T.C. tried to trick her into telling by saying, "That's okay. I know what the secret is." (Id. at 537.) Then A.Y. wanted to tell them, but she did not want to say it out loud, so her parents gave her a pencil and an envelope to write on. Her note indicated she "was sucking his weenie-bob and he was licking my pee-pee." (Id. at 626.)

After reading the note, T.C. turned the vehicle around and went back to Nunley's residence. She took a bat and started hitting Nunley's motorcycle and truck so he would come outside. Nunley came to the door. T.C. yelled at him and accused him of molesting A.Y. Nunley denied her accusations.

T.C., R.C., and A.Y. then went to the Washington County Police Department to make a report. They spoke to State Trooper Kevin Bowling. Trooper Bowling first attempted to interview A.Y. alone, but that did not work well, so T.C. stayed in the room with her while A.Y. answered questions. A.Y. said Nunley made her watch a "bad movie." (Id. at 626.) Trooper Bowling asked her what she meant by that, and she said, a "naked movie." (Id.) T.C. showed him the note A.Y. had written. T.C. believed she left the note with Trooper Bowling, but Trooper Bowling had no record or recollection of what happened with the note. Trooper Bowling referred the case to the Department of Child Services.

Authorities tried to arrange a forensic interview of A.Y., but T.C. did not immediately follow through. The interview was finally conducted on April 18, 2008, a little over a year after A.Y. was molested.

Donna Lloyd Black conducted the forensic interview of A.Y. at Comfort House. A.Y.'s interview was videotaped. Comfort House has an observation room for representatives from the prosecutor's office, law enforcement, and the Department of Child Services. Black can communicate with them by two-way radio, but a child being interviewed cannot see or hear the people in the observation room. Detective William Wibbels was in the observation room during A.Y.'s interview.

Nunley was charged with four counts of Class A felony child molesting: Count 1 alleged he touched A.Y.'s vagina with his mouth, Count 2 alleged he made A.Y. put her mouth on his penis, Count 3 alleged he put his hand in A.Y.'s vagina, and Count 4 alleged he touched A.Y.'s vagina with his penis. He was also charged with one count of Class D felony dissemination of matter harmful to minors, which alleged he showed A.Y. a pornographic movie.

At the time of trial, A.Y. was eight years old. A.Y. started crying at several points during her testimony and needed multiple breaks. A.Y. stated it was hard to say what had happened and that she could only write it. The prosecutor then had her write down what happened and read it to the jury. She testified she saw Nunley's penis when he made her suck on it and he licked her "pee pee." (Tr. at 450.) A.Y.testified he forced her to do these things by threatening to hurt her parents or call the police.

T.C. testified as to why she did not immediately bring A.Y. for a forensic interview: "I had second thoughts ... just because of the fact of putting my daughter through this. And not only that ... there's a side of you that thinks maybe if you just don't acknowledge it, that it'll go away." (Id. at 549.) A juror asked, "[W]hat made you continue to think about it? What, was it brought up by [A.Y.]?" (Id. at 569). T.C. responded, "No, it wasn't brought up by [A.Y.]. It was brought up by other people. Uhm, there were other allegations that I had heard about." (Id.) Nunley objected and moved for a mistrial, because T.C. had been instructed not to refer to any other allegations against him. The trial court denied the motion for mistrial because T.C. did not specify the nature of the allegations, and it instructed the jury to disregard T.C.'s answer.

The videotape was played for the jury. The video was difficult to understand in some places, but Black testified she was able to understand what A.Y. was saying to her during the interview. The prosecutor therefore asked Black to recount how A.Y. had said Nunley had touched her. Black testified A.Y. said Nunley "touched her on her pee-pee with his weenie-bob, his hand and his tongue," that he "made her put his weenie-bob in her mouth and suck it," and that he made her watch a video with naked people in it. (Id. at 613.) Detective Wibbels also testified concerning A.Y.'s allegations made during the interview.

Nunley testified [on] his own behalf. He claimed T.C. called and asked if he could watch A.Y. while she went to Corydon. He asserted T.C. did not bring any extra clothes for A.Y., and he did not think A.Y. would be spending the night. He claimed A.Y. fell asleep on the couch soon after arriving, and then his friend, Michelle Cayton, came over to Nunley's residence to spend the night, leaving shortly before T.C. picked up A.Y. Nunley claimed he was in a relationship with T.C., and when T.C. came to pick up A.Y., she asked to move in with him. He would not let her, and she was angry when she left. Although Nunley voluntarily spoke with the police, he never told them Cayton had been at his residence on the night in question.

The jury found Nunley guilty as charged.

Nunley v. State, 916 N.E.2d 712, 714-16 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) ("Nunley I") (footnotes omitted).

On appeal, Nunley raised four issues, which the Indiana Court of Appeals reordered and restated:

(1) whether the trial court committed reversible error by admitting A.Y.'s hearsay statements via the videotape of her interview and the testimony of several witnesses; (2) whether the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence A.Y. hadaccused her mother's boyfriend of attacking her and then later recanted; (3) whether the prosecutor committed misconduct by stating in her closing argument that A.Y. had not been taught how to lie; and (4) whether the trial court abused its discretion by denying Nunley's motion for a mistrial after T.C. referred to other allegations against Nunley.

Id. at 716. The court first held that the testimony about what A.Y. wrote on the envelope was admissible but that A.Y.'s forensic interview was not. Id. at 716-19. The court reversed Mr. Nunley's child molesting convictions in Counts 3 and 4, which were based solely on the interview, but "conclude[d] that the admission of the evidence was harmless error as to Counts 1, 2, and 5 because it was merely cumulative of other properly admitted evidence, including A.Y.'s own trial testimony." Id. at 719.

Next, the court held that the trial court properly excluded evidence that A.Y. had falsely accused her mother's boyfriend of attacking her. Id. at 720-21. The court concluded that the evidence was not admissible under Indiana Evidence Rule 608(b) and did not deny Mr. Nunley his right to present a defense. Id. at 721. The court then held that Mr. Nunley waived his argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct during closing argument by not moving for a mistrial. Id. at 722. Finally, the court held that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it denied a mistrial after T.C. referred to "other allegations" because T.C. was not specific and the court admonished the jury. Id.

Mr. Nunley filed a petition to transfer to the Indiana Supreme Court, raising two issues. Dkt. 14-6. First, he argued that the trial court violated his right to present a defense when it excluded evidence about A.Y.'s false allegation. Id. at 6-8. Second, he argued that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted hearsay. Id. at 8-10. The Indiana Supreme Court asked the parties to submit additional briefing on Indiana Evidence Rule 608. Dkt. 14-2 at 4. Mr. Nunleyargued that the trial court violated his right to cross-examination. Dkt. 14-7. The court denied Mr. Nunley's petition on March 4, 2010. Dkt. 14-2 at 4.

Following his direct appeal, Mr. Nunley filed a petition for post-conviction relief in state court. He asserted that both his trial and appellate counsel provided ineffective assistance of counsel in several respects. Nunley v. State, 2018 WL 2325438 (Ind. Ct. App. May 23, 2018) ("Nunley II"). The trial court denied Mr. Nunley's petition following a hearing, and the Indiana...