Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 1 of 7

MEMORANDUM DECISION

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

Chad A. Montgomery

Montgomery Law Office

Lafayette, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Curtis T. Hill, Jr.

Attorney General of Indiana

Monika Prekopa Talbot

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

I N T H E

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Maddox Macy,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

August 17, 2017

Court of Appeals Case No.

12A02-1703-CR-440

Appeal from the Clinton Circuit 

Court

The Honorable Bradley K. Mohler, 

Judge

Trial Court Cause No.

12C01-1606-F6-512

Bailey, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 2 of 7

Case Summary

[1] Maddox Macy (“Macy”) was convicted of Dissemination of Matter Harmful to 

Minors, as a Level 6 felony,1 and Distribution or Exhibition of Obscene Matter, 

as a Class A misdemeanor.2 She now appeals, raising for our review the sole 

issue of whether there was sufficient evidence to sustain her convictions. 

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] Sometime in late May or early June of 2016, in Frankfort, Ashley Anderson’s 

(“Anderson”) attention was drawn to several pornographic pictures that were 

visible in the window of the residence next door to her own. Macy and two of 

her children lived at that residence, and the window in which the pictures were 

placed faced the bedroom window of Anderson’s children. The children’s 

bedroom window was only a few feet from the window where the pictures were 

displayed. 

[4] Initially, Anderson tried to keep the curtains closed in her children’s room, 

hoping that Macy would eventually take the pictures down. The photographs 

eventually exacerbated an ongoing conflict between Anderson and Macy, and 

Anderson called police on June 6, 2016. Frankfort Police Department Sergeant 

 

1

Ind. Code § 35-49-3-3(a)(2).

2

I.C. § 35-49-3-1(2).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 3 of 7

Mark Schilling (“Sergeant Schilling”) was dispatched to respond to Anderson’s 

complaint.

[5] When Sergeant Schilling arrived, he spoke with Anderson. From the sidewalk 

that ran in front of Macy’s and Anderson’s house, Sergeant Schilling could see 

the photographs in the window of Macy’s house. As he got closer, Sergeant 

Schilling could see that the photographs were clearly of a pornographic nature, 

and decided to try to make contact with someone in Macy’s home.

[6] Sergeant Schilling knocked on the door of Macy’s home and encountered 

Macy’s older daughter. The girl said that Macy had put the pictures there, and 

told Sergeant Schilling that he would have to speak with Macy. Sergeant 

Schilling waited at Macy’s home and eventually contacted her. When Sergeant 

Schilling confronted Macy about the pictures, she told him that her attorney 

had said the pictures were permissible, that Sergeant Schilling should contact 

her attorney, and that she did not have time to speak with Sergeant Schilling 

that day. Macy then got in her car and drove away.

[7] While investigating at Macy’s home, Sergeant Schilling had taken photographs 

of the images in Macy’s windows and used these to obtain a search warrant. 

Sergeant Schilling and two other police officers went to Macy’s home to 

execute the warrant. No one was home, and the officers forced the front door 

open, went inside, and took the photographs down from the windows and 

collected them as evidence.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 4 of 7

[8] On June 6, 2016, the State charged Macy with Dissemination of Matter 

Harmful to Minors, as a Level 6 felony, and Distribution or Exhibition of 

Obscene Matter, as a Class A misdemeanor. Macy was arrested the next day.

[9] On February 6, 2017, a bench trial was conducted. At the conclusion of the

trial, the court found Macy guilty as charged.

[10] On February 10, 2017, a sentencing hearing was conducted. The trial court 

entered judgments of conviction against Macy on both counts, and sentenced 

her to 365 days for each offense, with the sentences run concurrently and with 

all but two days suspended to probation.

[11] This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[12] Macy’s appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting her 

convictions. Our standard of review in such cases is well settled. 

This court will not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility 

of witnesses. Cox v. State,774 N.E.2d 1025, 1028 (Ind. Ct. App.

2002). Only the evidence most favorable to the judgment, 

together with all reasonable inferences that can be drawn 

therefrom will be considered. Id. If a reasonable trier of fact 

could have found the defendant guilty based on the probative 

evidence and reasonable inferences drawn therefrom, then a 

conviction will be affirmed. Id. at 1028–29.

Sargent v. State, 875 N.E.2d 762, 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007)
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 5 of 7

[13] Here, Macy was charged with Dissemination of Matter Harmful to Minors and 

Distribution or Exhibition of Obscene Matter. To convict Macy of 

Dissemination of Matter Harmful to Minors, as charged, the State was required 

to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Macy knowingly or intentionally 

displayed matter that is harmful to minors, namely, images portraying male 

nudity or sexual conduct, in an area to which minors, namely, Anderson’s 

children, had visual, auditory, or physical access, unless each minor was 

accompanied by the minor’s parent or guardian. See I.C. § 35-49-3-3(a)(2); 

App’x Vol. II at 9. To convict Macy of Distribution or Exhibition of Obscene 

Matter, as charged, the State was required to prove that Macy knowingly or 

intentionally exhibited obscene matter to another person, namely, Anderson 

and her children. See I.C. § 35-49-3-1(2); App’x Vol. II at 10.

[14] Macy challenges the sufficiency of the evidence with respect to the scienter 

element of the charged offenses. For purposes of Indiana criminal law, a party 

engages in knowing conduct “if, when he engages in the conduct, he is aware of 

a high probability that he is doing so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(b). A party engages in 

intentional conduct “if, when he engages in the conduct, it is his conscious 

objective to do so.” I.C. § 35-41-2-2(a).

[15] Our review of the record discloses the following evidence that supports the 

judgment. Anderson testified that several days before she contacted police, two 

of her children drew her attention to the pictures in Macy’s window, which was 

only four or five feet from her children’s bedroom window. Anderson testified 

she could see clearly the content of the pictures from her children’s bedroom. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 6 of 7

Sergeant Schilling, who responded to Anderson’s report, testified that he could 

see the pictures from the sidewalk in front of Anderson’s and Macy’s homes. 

Sergeant Schilling further testified that when he tried to contact Macy, he 

initially encountered Macy’s daughter, who told him that Macy had put the 

pictures up and that he would have to speak with Macy about them. When 

Sergeant Schilling finally spoke with Macy and told her, “I need to talk to you 

about the pictures in the window,” Macy responded, “I don’t have time” and “I 

talked to my attorney and he said they’re fine.” (Tr. at 19.) When Sergeant 

Schilling informed Macy that the prosecutor’s office disagreed with that 

assessment, Macy told Sergeant Schilling to contact her attorney.

[16] In her brief before this Court, Macy does not dispute the nature of the pictures 

in her window. She disputes Sergeant Schilling’s testimony, seeking to draw 

our attention to her and her children’s testimony at trial, and suggesting that 

because her children often had guests, we should conclude that there was 

insufficient evidence of Macy’s knowledge. We decline Macy’s invitation to 

reweigh evidence, which this Court is not permitted to do. To the extent Macy 

argues that we should rely upon Mediate v. State, 498 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. 1986), 

we think that case is inapposite because it has no bearing upon Sergeant 

Schilling’s testimony, which supports an inference that Macy was aware of the 

images in her windows before police were called, and chose not to take action 

about them. Anderson’s and Sergeant Schilling’s testimonies are sufficient to 

sustain the convictions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 12A02-1703-CR-440 | August 17, 2017 Page 7 of 7

[17] Affirmed.

Baker, J., and Altice, J., concur.