Vickie Jessie v. State of Indiana ( 2012 )

Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D),
this Memorandum Decision shall not be
regarded as precedent or cited before
any court except for the purpose of
establishing the defense of res judicata,
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
MATTHEW D. ANGLEMEYER GREGORY F. ZOELLER
Marion County Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Indianapolis, Indiana
JAMES B. MARTIN
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
FILED
Dec 07 2012, 9:31 am
IN THE CLERK
of the supreme court,
court of appeals and
tax court
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
VICKIE JESSIE, )
)
Appellant-Defendant, )
)
vs. ) No. 49A02-1205-CR-413
)
STATE OF INDIANA, )
)
Appellee-Plaintiff. )
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle, Judge
Cause No. 49G03-1111-FA-79065
December 7, 2012
MEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION
NAJAM, Judge
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Vickie Jessie appeals her conviction for criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A
felony, and the trial court’s order that she pay $200 restitution to her victim.1 Jessie
raises three issues for our review, which we restate as follows:
1. Whether the trial court committed fundamental error when it
permitted the State to make multiple references to a “rape kit” or
“sexual assault kit.”
2. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support Jessie’s
conviction.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion when it ordered Jessie to
pay $200 in restitution to her victim.
We affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On November 4, 2011, Gary Johnson called J.B., his former girlfriend, and asked
her if she wanted to “hang out” with him and his current girlfriend, Jessie. Transcript at
22. J.B. agreed, and Johnson and Jessie arrived at J.B.’s house shortly thereafter to pick
her up and take her to Johnson’s house.
At Johnson’s house, the three had several drinks together over the course of about
four hours. Around 3:30 a.m., Johnson asked J.B. and Jessie if they wanted to have a
threesome. J.B. declined, but Jessie expressed interest. Johnson then punched J.B. in the
face and knocked her out. When J.B. awoke, she noticed blood in her eyes and saw
Johnson and Jessie standing over her while hitting her. J.B. lost consciousness a second
time, and when she awoke again both Johnson and Jessie were undressing her.
1
Jessie does not appeal her other convictions or her sentence.
2
J.B. then realized she was naked and face down on the bed. During the course of
the assault, Johnson inserted his penis into J.B.’s anus. At various times, Jessie would
force J.B. to perform sexual acts on Johnson, receive sexual acts from J.B. while Johnson
pointed a gun at J.B., or stand nearby while Johnson raped J.B. and told Johnson to “give
it” to the “whore.” Id. at 52.
After the attack, Jessie emptied J.B.’s purse onto the bedroom floor, took J.B.’s
ATM card, and, while holding a carpet cutter to J.B.’s chest, demanded J.B.’s personal
identification number. J.B. complied, and Jessie took J.B. to a nearby gas station with an
ATM. Inside the station, Jessie removed $200 from J.B.’s bank account. While she was
doing so, J.B. told the cashier that she had been raped, and J.B. then called 9-1-1 on the
cashier’s personal phone. Jessie fled before the police arrived.
On November 10, the State charged Jessie with criminal deviate conduct, as a
Class A felony, along with several other charges. At the ensuing jury trial, the State
introduced, without objection, testimony from forensic investigators and evidence
technicians. Those witnesses repeatedly referred to the use of a “rape kit” or a “sexual
assault kit.”2 E.g., id. at 246-47, 330-32.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Jessie guilty of, among other counts,
criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony, and robbery, as a Class B felony.
Accordingly, the trial court entered its judgment of conviction and sentence, and it
ordered Jessie to pay $200 to J.B. in restitution. This appeal ensued.
2
A rape kit, or sexual assault kit, is a collection of physical evidence from the victim of an
alleged sexual assault taken by hospital staff.
3
DISCUSSION AND DECISION
Issue One: Fundamental Error
Jessie first argues on appeal that the description by the State’s witnesses of a “rape
kit” or a “sexual assault kit” was fundamental error. As our supreme court has explained:
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); Hayworth v. State, 904 N.E.2d
684, 694 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009). 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.”
Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006). The error claimed
must either “make a fair trial impossible” or constitute “clearly blatant
violations of basic and elementary principles of due process.” Clark v.
State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 131 (Ind. 2009). This exception is available only in
“egregious circumstances.” Brown v. State, 799 N.E.2d 1064, 1068 (Ind.
2003).
This doctrine has been applied, for example, to review a conviction
without proof of an element of the crime despite the lack of objection.
Smith v. State, 459 N.E.2d 355, 357 (Ind. 1984). . . .
Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010).
Jessie’s argument on this issue is that the use of the term “rape kit” or “sexual
assault kit” “invaded the province of the jury” and amounted to opinions on the ultimate
issue, contrary to Indiana Evidence Rule 704(b). Appellant’s Br. at 8. We cannot agree
that any error in the State’s admission of this evidence amounted to fundamental error.
The descriptive terms of the collection kits only suggest that J.B. had alleged to the
hospital staff who collected the evidence that she was the victim of a rape or sexual
assault. The jury was well aware of J.B.’s allegation regardless of the name of the
collection kits. Nothing in this issue is “a blatant violation of basic principles,” or shows
4
that “the harm or potential for harm is substantial.” Brown, 929 N.E.2d at 207. As such,
this issue is without merit.
Issue Two: Sufficient Evidence
Jessie next argues that the State failed to present sufficient evidence to support its
allegation that she committed criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony. Specifically,
Jessie asserts that the State failed to show that she was Johnson’s accomplice when
Johnson sodomized J.B. Rather, Jessie continues, the State’s evidence showed that she
“was merely present during the anal sex and failed to oppose it.” Appellant’s Br. at 15.
We disagree.
To demonstrate that Jessie acted as Johnson’s accomplice, the State was required
to show that Jessie “knowingly or intentionally aid[ed], induce[d], or cause[d]” Johnson
to commit criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony.3 Ind. Code § 35-41-2-4.
[T]he accessory statute has been construed to impose a form of vicarious
liability for everything . . . which follows incidentally in the execution of
the common design, as one of its natural and probable consequences, even
though it was not intended as part of the original design or common plan,
upon a showing that the accomplice acted in concert with those who
physically committed the elements of the crime.
Chappell v. State, 966 N.E.2d 124, 130 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (emphasis added; citations
and quotations omitted), trans. denied.
The State’s evidence that Jessie aided Johnson during his commission of the
offense was overwhelming. The State demonstrated that Jessie and Johnson designed to
sexually assault J.B., with Jessie helping Johnson to beat J.B. while she went in and out
of consciousness, helping him remove J.B.’s clothing, actively participating in the sexual
3
Jessie does not dispute that the State presented sufficient evidence to show that Johnson
committed criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A felony.
5
assault herself, and vocally encouraging Johnson throughout the ordeal. Johnson’s
criminal deviate conduct was more than incidental to the execution of that common
design, and, therefore, Jessie is liable as an accomplice. See id. Jessie’s argument to the
contrary is without merit.
Issue Three: Restitution
Finally, Jessie complains about the trial court’s $200 restitution order. “‘The
purpose of a restitution order is to impress upon the criminal defendant the magnitude of
the loss he has caused and to defray costs to the victims caused by the offense.’” Bennett
v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1281, 1286 (quoting Henderson v. State, 848 N.E.2d 341, 346 (Ind.
Ct. App. 2006)). It is within the trial court’s discretion to order restitution, and we will
reverse only for an abuse of that discretion. Id. An abuse of discretion occurs if the trial
court’s decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
before it, or if the trial court misinterprets or misapplies the law. Id.Jessie has invited any error on this issue and, as such, she cannot request relief
based on this ground on appeal. See Mitchell v. State, 730 N.E.2d 197, 201 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2000), trans. denied. During her sentencing hearing, in arguing mitigating
circumstances Jessie’s counsel expressly informed the court that “Jessie is certainly
willing to make restitution” to J.B. Transcript at 556. The court then ordered her to pay
J.B. $200, but the court added that, “if there is an additional request for restitution, the
Court will advise [Jessie] and her counsel. And if you wish to have a hearing, we’ll set
the matter for a hearing.” Id. at 576. Thus, the court’s restitution order was based on
Jessie’s invitation to pay restitution as a mitigating circumstance. Having invited the
6
restitution order, Jessie cannot request relief from it on appeal. See Mitchell, 730 N.E.2d
at 201. Invited error is not reversible error. Id.Conclusion
In sum, we affirm Jessie’s conviction for criminal deviate conduct, as a Class A
felony, and the trial court’s restitution order. Jessie cannot show that the State’s
references to the “rape kit” or “sexual assault kit” were fundamental error, and the State
presented sufficient evidence to show that Jessie was Johnson’s accomplice during
Johnson’s commission of the criminal deviate conduct. Further, any error in the trial
court’s restitution order was invited by Jessie when she offered to pay restitution as a
mitigating circumstance.
Affirmed.
FRIEDLANDER, J., and BRADFORD, J., concur.
7