Marc Edward Zumwalt v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2017 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), this FILED
Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as Jul 27 2017, 11:38 am
precedent or cited before any court except for the
purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
collateral estoppel, or the law of the case. Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Donald C. Swanson, Jr. Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Deputy Public Defender Attorney General of Indiana
Fort Wayne, Indiana
George P. Sherman
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Marc Edward Zumwalt, July 27, 2017
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
02A04-1701-CR-175
v. Appeal from the Allen Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Frances C. Gull,
Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff.
Trial Court Cause No.
02D05-1606-F1-10
Bradford, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 1 of 7
Case Summary
[1] In March of 2016, Appellant-Defendant Marc Zumwalt was living with M.H., a
four-year-old boy, and N.G., a two-year-old girl, and their parents when the
children were removed from the home and placed in foster care. M.H. told one
of his foster parents that Zumwalt had molested himself and his sister. In a
police interview, Zumwalt admitted to fondling M.H. and N.G., licking M.H.’s
penis, and placing his tongue on N.G.’s vagina. The State charged Zumwalt
with two counts of Level I felony child molesting and two counts of Level 4
felony child molesting. A jury found Zumwalt guilty as charged, and the trial
court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 104 years of incarceration.
Zumwalt contends that the admission of his incriminating police interview
amounts to fundamental error and that his two convictions for molesting N.G.
violate prohibitions against double jeopardy. Because we disagree, we affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] On March 24, 2016, M.H., a four-year-old boy, and N.G., a two-year-old girl,
were removed from their Fort Wayne home after a search warrant uncovered
marijuana, cocaine, and evidence of methamphetamine manufacture. At the
time, Zumwalt had been residing in the home with M.H., N.G., and their
parents. M.H. and N.G. were placed in licensed foster care. Around April 5,
2016, M.H. told one of his foster parents that Zumwalt touched his “butt” and
“private part.” Tr. Vol. II p. 36. M.H.’s foster parents contacted the Indiana
Department of Child Services. On April 15, 2016, both children were
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 2 of 7
interviewed, and M.H., in addition to repeating his allegations of molestation
against Zumwalt, said that Zumwalt had also molested N.G.
[3] Police interviewed Zumwalt on May 5 and May 17, 2016. Before each
interview, police presented Zumwalt with an “Advice of Rights” form, which
police went through with Zumwalt and he then signed. State’s Exs. 5, 7. The
forms indicated to Zumwalt that he had the right to remain silent, anything he
said could and would be used against him in a court of law, he had the right to
any attorney and to have one present during questioning, he could have an
attorney appointed to him if he could not afford one, and he had the right to
terminate the interviews at any time.
[4] Fort Wayne Police Detective Roy Sutphin interviewed Zumwalt on May 17,
2016. Zumwalt told Detective Sutphin that “I need my nuts cut … so this s***
doesn’t happen.” State’s Ex. 8 part 1 at 11:25-11:30. Zumwalt admitted that he
had once touched N.G.’s vagina with his hand because he was aroused and had
an erection at the time.
[5] As for M.H., Zumwalt explained that “[h]is mother talked about him having a
big d***” and that he was “curious wanting to see it.” State’s Ex. 8 part 1 at
17:05-17:15. Zumwalt admitted that he had touched M.H.’s penis but claimed,
initially, that he could not remember ever fellating him. Zumwalt also admitted
that, approximately one-and-one-half years previously, he had “played with
[M.H.’s penis], touched his nuts, pulled it, played it and let go.” State’s Ex. 8
part 2 at 4:35-4:40. Zumwalt admitted that he had done that to M.H. four or
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 3 of 7
five times. Near the end of the interview, Zumwalt admitted that he had put his
tongue on N.G.’s vagina and had “licked the head” of M.H.’s penis one time.
State’s Ex. 8 part 2 at 13:40.
[6] On July 1, 2014, the State charged Zumwalt with two counts of Level 1 felony
child molesting and two counts of Level 4 felony child molesting. Zumwalt’s
jury trial was held on November 29 and 30, 2016. M.H. testified that Zumwalt
“touched [his] pee-pee … [a] lot of times” with his hand and “put his mouth on
[M.H.’s] private … [a] lot of times.” Tr. Vol. II pp. 44, 47-48. M.H. testified
that he had witnessed Zumwalt “touch[ing N.G.’s] privates, too.” Tr. Vol. II p
45. The jury found Zumwalt guilty as charged, and, on December 22, 2016, the
trial court sentenced him to an aggregate sentence of 104 years of incarceration.
Discussion and Decision
I. Confession
[7] Zumwalt contends that the admission of evidence related to his police interview
conducted on May 17, 2016, during which he confessed to molesting M.H. and
N.G., amounts to fundamental error.
Appellate courts may, on rare occasions, resort to the
fundamental error exception to address on direct appeal an
otherwise procedurally defaulted claim. But fundamental error is
extremely narrow and available only when the record reveals a
clearly blatant violation of basic and elementary principles,
where the harm or potential for harm cannot be denied, and
which violation is so prejudicial to the rights of the defendant as
to make a fair trial impossible.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 4 of 7
Jewell v. State, 887 N.E.2d 939, 942 (Ind. 2008).
[8] We conclude that a claim of fundamental error in the admission of his police
interview is not available to Zumwalt. As the State notes, Zumwalt specifically
stated that “[t]here’s no objection to [State’s Exhibit] 8[,]” which is the video
recording of the May 17, 2016, interview. Tr. Vol. II p. 125. The Indiana
Supreme Court has held that the doctrine of fundamental error is inapplicable
under such circumstances. Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 679 (Ind. 2013).
As the Court noted,
[t]he doctrine presupposes the trial judge erred in performing
some duty that the law had charged the judge with performing
sua sponte. Presumably a trial judge is aware of her own sua sponte
duties. But upon an express declaration of “no objection” a trial
judge has no duty to determine which exhibits a party decides,
for whatever strategic reasons, to allow into evidence.
Id. Because Zumwalt specifically stated that he had no objection to the
admission of State’s Exhibit 8, he may not now claim that its admission
amounts to fundamental error.
II. Double Jeopardy
[9] Zumwalt contends that his two convictions for molesting N.G. violate Indiana
constitutional prohibitions against double jeopardy, specifically, the “actual
evidence” test. In Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999), the Indiana
Supreme Court held “that two or more offenses are the ‘same offense’ in
violation of Article I, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution, if, with respect to
… the actual evidence used to convict, the essential elements of one challenged
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 5 of 7
offense also establish the essential elements of another challenged offense.” Id.
at 49-50. The Richardson court stated the actual evidence test as follows:
To show that two challenged offenses constitute the “same
offense” in a claim of double jeopardy, a defendant must
demonstrate a reasonable possibility that the evidentiary facts
used by the fact-finder to establish the essential elements of one
offense may also have been used to establish the essential
elements of a second challenged offense.
Id. at 53.
[10] While Zumwalt acknowledges that he confessed to touching N.G.’s vagina with
his tongue, he contends that there is no evidence of any other act that would
support his conviction for Level 4 felony child molestation of N.G. Zumwalt,
however, also admitted in his May 17, 2016, interview that he had touched
N.G.’s vagina with his hand while aroused and while having an erection.
Moreover, M.H. testified that he had witnessed Zumwalt “touch[ing N.G.’s]
privates, too.” Tr. Vol. II p 45. This evidence is sufficient to support
Zumwalt’s separate conviction for Level 4 felony child molesting. See Ind.
Code § 35-42-4-3(b) (“A person who, with a child under fourteen (14) years of
age, performs or submits to any fondling or touching, of either the child or the
older person, with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the
child or the older person, commits child molesting, a Level 4 felony.”).
Zumwalt has failed to establish that his two convictions for molesting N.G.
violate prohibitions against double jeopardy.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 6 of 7
[11] Zumwalt notes that at sentencing, the prosecutor suggested that the trial court
merge or run the sentences for the convictions relating to N.G. concurrently,
stating, “I think there was really testimony at trial, that, conservatively, he
committed one act with respect to N.G.” As explained, however, this is
incorrect, as the record supports the jury’s finding that Zumwalt committed
multiple acts. That said, the trial court was not bound by the prosecutor’s
suggestion. See Gardner v. State, 591 N.E.2d 592, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 1992)
(stating, “Were we to accept a concession as dispositive of an issue, we would
effectively abdicate our judicial function in favor of a party.”). Because the
prosecutor’s suggestion that Zumwalt committed only one act against N.G. was
not supported by the record, we do not accept it as dispositive.
[12] We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Brown, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 02A04-1701-CR-175 | July 27, 2017 Page 7 of 7