Jordan Lee Haehl v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.) ( 2019 )

MEMORANDUM DECISION
Pursuant to Ind. Appellate Rule 65(D), FILED
this Memorandum Decision shall not be Dec 20 2019, 5:59 am
regarded as precedent or cited before any CLERK
court except for the purpose of establishing Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
the defense of res judicata, collateral and Tax Court
estoppel, or the law of the case.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Andrew J. Baldwin Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Sean R. Moore Attorney General of Indiana
Luke Purdy
Franklin, Indiana Jesse R. Drum
Supervising Deputy Attorney
General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jordan Lee Haehl, December 20, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2559
v. Appeal from the Shelby Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable R. Kent Apsley,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
73D01-1704-F3-7
Altice, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 1 of 9
Case Summary
[1] Following a jury trial, Jordan Haehl was convicted of rape as a Level 1 felony.
Haehl appeals, presenting three issues for our review:
1. Did the State present sufficient evidence to support Haehl’s
conviction for Level 1 felony rape?
2. Did the trial court abuse its discretion in permitting the State
to introduce expert testimony concerning why victims of
domestic violence might recant their testimony?
3. Did the trial court commit fundamental error in the manner in
which it responded to a jury question?
[2] We affirm.
Facts & Procedural History
[3] Haehl and A.H. had been in a romantic relationship for nearly ten years, had
two children together, and lived in Haehl’s parents’ house in Shelbyville. In the
fall of 2016, A.H. began having an affair. On March 31, 2017, Haehl and A.H.
separated, and A.H. moved out, taking the couple’s children with her to live
with her grandmother in Columbus, Indiana. On the morning of April 17,
2017, A.H. communicated with Haehl through text messages and phone calls
and arranged to stop by Haehl’s parents’ house to pick up a laptop and other
items. Haehl informed A.H. where the items were located and indicated that
he would not be there.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 2 of 9
[4] When A.H. arrived at the home, she did not see Haehl. She went to the dining
room where Haehl told her the laptop would be and discovered it was not there.
She then heard a door open and Haehl entered, yelling at her about destroying
their family. Haehl had a rifle in his right hand. Haehl and A.H. started to
argue. When A.H. went outside, Haehl followed. Haehl calmed down, but
things escalated again when A.H. told him she was going to leave. Haehl
pointed the rifle into the air and fired a shot before falling to his knees. A.H.
also fell to her knees and begged Haehl not to hurt himself. Haehl stood up and
fired another shot, this time in the direction of the driveway.
[5] Haehl told A.H. to get in the car but did not initially tell her where they were
going. A.H. got in the car because she “didn’t want to lose [Haehl] and he had
a gun in his hand.” Transcript Vol. 1 at 179. Haehl put the gun in the backseat
and started driving. He said he was going to the business where the man with
whom A.H. was having an affair worked and that he was going to kill him and
then himself while she watched. Haehl drove recklessly, speeding and swerving
on the roadway and threatening to hit a tree. A.H. eventually convinced Haehl
to turn around and go back to his parents’ house.
[6] Once back at the house, Haehl told A.H. to stay in the car. He then grabbed
the gun out of the backseat and walked around the side of the garage where
A.H. could not see him. A.H. waited for a couple of minutes in silence and
then she heard a gunshot. Believing that Haehl had shot himself, A.H. got out
of the car to check on him. As she came around the side of the garage, she saw
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 3 of 9
Haehl standing there with the rifle pointed toward the ground. A.H. convinced
Haehl to go inside so they could talk. Haehl kept the rifle with him.
[7] A.H. and Haehl talked for about fifteen to twenty minutes before “[t]hings got
heated” again. Id. at 191. Haehl directed A.H. to go upstairs, and she
complied. Haehl, with the gun still in his hands, followed A.H. into his
parents’ bedroom, where he put the rifle down on the love seat at the foot of the
bed. Haehl then grabbed A.H.’s hand and started kissing her neck. When A.H.
asked him what he was doing, Haehl got mad. He said, “I just want you to
love me, and I just want to feel what that feels like one more time” and that if
she “was going to be unable to love him like that, that he was going to hurt
himself with the gun.” Id. at 201. A.H. “really thought [Haehl] was gonna kill
himself,” and she “was worried about [her] kids, and [she] was worried about
[herself], and [she] was worried about him not being around.” Id. at 201.
Haehl asked A.H. to give him “one more moment” and “[l]et [him] feel what it
feels like to be loved by [her] one more time.” Id. at 212. A.H. understood
Haehl to mean that he wanted to have sex, so she took off her pants and her
underwear and threw them on the floor. Haehl lifted A.H. onto the bed and
inserted his penis into her vagina.
[8] After A.H. left the house, she met up with the individual whom she had been
seeing. She then went to the police station and reported what had transpired
between her and Haehl. After giving her statement, A.H. complied with the
request of the police to submit to a sexual assault examination. A detective
then contacted Haehl, who voluntarily agreed to an interview. Haehl admitted
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 4 of 9
that he had been armed with a gun, had threatened to kill himself, and had sex
with A.H.
[9] On April 19, 2017, the State charged Haehl with Count I, rape as a Level 3
felony; Count II, criminal confinement as a Level 3 felony; Count III,
kidnapping as a Level 3 felony; and Count IV, intimidation as a Level 5 felony.
On June 6, 2018, the State was permitted to amend the charging information to
add Count V, rape as a Level 1 felony.
[10] A two-day jury trial commenced on August 7, 2018. The gist of A.H.’s trial
testimony was that Haehl did not force her to have sex. The State had A.H.
review her prior statement to police and then elicited testimony from her about
inconsistencies between that statement and her trial testimony. A.H.
acknowledged that in her statement to police, she described the encounter with
Haehl as “forceful.” Id. at 208. She also acknowledged that when the officer
taking her report asked if she felt that Haehl forced her to have sex, she
responded that “more than anything, . . . like it was a mental thing.” Id. at 216.
She also agreed that in her prior statement, she reported she was “scared that
[Haehl] might threaten [her] or hurt [her]” and that “he might hurt the kids.”
Id. at 221.
[11] At the conclusion of all of the evidence, the jury found Haehl guilty of Counts I,
II, IV, and V, but not guilty of Count III. A sentencing hearing was held on
September 26, 2018. The trial court entered judgment of conviction on only
Count V, Level 1 felony rape, and sentenced Haehl to twenty-five years, with
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 5 of 9
five years suspended to probation. Haehl now appeals. Additional evidence
will be provided as necessary.
Discussion & Decision
1. Sufficiency
[12] Haehl argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for Level
1 felony rape. Specifically, Haehl argues that because A.H. recanted the
allegations giving rise to the charge of rape, the State impermissibly relied upon
impeachment testimony from A.H. to prove its case.
[13] When we consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we neither
reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of the witnesses. Perez v. State,
872 N.E.2d 208, 212-13 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007), trans. denied. Instead, we consider
only the evidence most favorable to the verdict and the reasonable inferences
drawn therefrom and will affirm if the evidence and those inferences constitute
substantial evidence of probative value to support the judgment. Id. at 213.
Reversal is appropriate only when reasonable persons would not be able to form
inferences as to each material element of the offense. Id. A conviction may be
based solely on circumstantial evidence. Id.
[14] To sustain Haehl’s conviction for Level 1 felony rape, the State’s evidence must
have established beyond a reasonable doubt that Haehl “knowingly or
intentionally ha[d] sexual intercourse with [A.H.] when . . . [A.H.] [was]
compelled by force or imminent threat of force” and that Haehl committed such
“while armed with a deadly weapon.” Ind. Code § 35-42-4-1(a)(1), (b)(2). The
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 6 of 9
force necessary to sustain a conviction for rape “need not be physical,” and “it
may be inferred from the circumstances.” Bryant v. State, 644 N.E.2d 859, 860
(Ind. 1994). A threat of deadly force is sufficient if it is imminent enough to
cause the victim to submit to the aggressor. Ford v. State, 543 N.E.2d 357, 358
(Ind. 1989).
[15] Here, the State presented evidence that Haehl had a gun and that he and A.H.
argued about the state of their relationship. Haehl fired the gun at least twice
and took A.H. on a dangerous drive, during which he threatened to kill the man
she was seeing and then himself as A.H. watched. After returning to the house,
Haehl took the gun and went out of A.H.’s sight, where he fired the gun again,
making A.H. believe that he had shot himself. Shortly thereafter, Haehl
directed A.H. to an upstairs bedroom and followed her with the gun in his
hands. Haehl put the gun down near the bed and then kissed A.H. on the neck.
When A.H. questioned him, Haehl got angry. Haehl told A.H. that if she “was
going to be unable to love him like that, that he was going to hurt himself with
the gun.” Transcript Vol. 1 at 201. Haehl lifted A.H. onto the bed and inserted
his penis into her vagina. From this evidence, the jury could have concluded
that A.H. was compelled by force or imminent threat of force to submit to
sexual intercourse with Haehl and that Haehl possessed a gun during the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 7 of 9
encounter. 1 We will not reweigh the evidence or reassess the credibility of the
witnesses on appeal.
2. Expert Testimony
[16] Haehl argues that the trial court should not have admitted expert testimony
about why domestic abuse victims might recant given that there was no
evidence that A.H. was a victim of domestic abuse. Specifically, Haehl argues
that the expert’s testimony was not relevant. See Ind. Evidence Rule 401.
[17] Although Haehl filed a Motion to Exclude Expert Witness Testimony the day
before trial, 2 he did not object during trial when the State’s expert testified about
the dynamic of a domestic abuser-victim relationship and why a victim might
recant. 3 See Brown v. State, 929 N.E.2d 204, 207 (Ind. 2010) (citing Jackson v.
State, 735 N.E.2d 1146, 1152 (Ind. 2000)) (noting that to preserve an issue for
appellate review, the defendant must contemporaneously object at trial, even if
he filed a pretrial motion to exclude the evidence). Haehl has therefore waived
the issue for our review.
1
Haehl suggests that the State impermissibly relied upon impeachment evidence as substantive evidence.
Indeed, the State referred A.H. to her prior statement to police and elicited testimony from her regarding
inconsistencies between that statement and her trial testimony. Haehl did not object to such testimony or
seek a limiting instruction. Haehl has therefore waived the issue.
2
The trial court addressed the motion prior to the start of the jury trial and denied it on timeliness grounds.
3
Haehl later objected to the expert’s testimony regarding matters not relevant to instant circumstances.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 8 of 9
3. Jury Question
[18] Haehl argues that the trial court erred when it responded to a question posed by
the jury during its deliberations without his input. Haehl asserts that the jury
requested A.H.’s testimony from both days of the jury trial and the trial court
responded that such was not available and that the jurors must rely on their
collective memory of her testimony. He also notes other questions posed by the
jury and the lack of a record of his involvement in deciding how to respond
thereto. Specifically, Haehl argues that the transcript does not show that he or
the attorneys were involved in deciding how to respond to the jury’s question or
how the court went about responding to the jury’s question. Acknowledging
that he did not bring the alleged error to the court’s attention, Haehl argues that
such amounted to fundamental error.
[19] Haehl does not address why he did not specifically request to have those parts
of the proceedings transcribed or, if no transcript was available, why he did not
request a certified statement concerning how the trial court addressed the jury’s
questions. See Ind. Appellate Rule 31. Without a transcript or certified
statement, we would have to speculate to address Haehl’s arguments. This is
not within our purview. In short, Haehl has not established that the trial court
committed error, let alone fundamental error.
[20] Judgment affirmed.
Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 18A-CR-2559 | December 20, 2019 Page 9 of 9