Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 1 of 14

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

Michael R. Fisher

Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE

Gregory F. Zoeller

Attorney General of Indiana

J. T. Whitehead

Deputy Attorney General

Indianapolis, Indiana

IN THE

COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA

Ricardo Minney,

Appellant-Defendant,

v.

State of Indiana,

Appellee-Plaintiff.

October 15, 2015

Court of Appeals Case No.

49A02-1503-CR-172

Appeal from the Marion 

Superior Court

The Honorable Lisa F. Borges, 

Judge

The Honorable Anne M. 

Flannelly, Magistrate

Trial Court Cause No.

49G04-1406-FA-33132

Riley, Judge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 2 of 14

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

[1] Appellant-Defendant, Ricardo Minney (Minney), appeals his conviction and

sentence for Counts I-II, child molesting, Class A felonies, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-

3(a)(1) (2013); and Count IV, child molesting, a Class C felony, I.C. § 35-42-4-

3(b) (2013). 

[2] We affirm. 

ISSUES

[3] Minney raises two issues on appeal, which we restate as: 

(1) Whether the trial court committed a fundamental error by admitting certain 

testimonies at trial; and 

(2) Whether Minney’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY1

[4] T.P. (Father) and J.H. (Mother) are the biological parents of J.P., born on April 

25, 2007. In 2008, Father and Mother ended their relationship, and Mother 

 

1 In accordance with the revised Administrative Rule 9(G), certain evidence was submitted to our court 

which is declared confidential and must be excluded from public access. Because a number of facts derived 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 3 of 14

became the custodial parent. Parenting time was set in accordance with the

Indiana Parenting Time Guidelines. Thereafter, Father married L.P. and they

had two children, a son and a daughter. J.P. would visit with Father and L.P. 

every other weekend, a day in the course of the week, and during school 

vacations. Sometime in 2010 or 2011, Mother began a romantic relationship 

with Minney, and shortly thereafter, the two moved in together. J.P. was fond 

of Minney and she referred to him as her “stepdad.” (Transcript p. 31). During 

that time, Mother changed her work schedule where she worked from 1:00 a.m. 

to 9:00 a.m. For the times she was at work, Mother would leave J.P. under her 

parents’ care or under Minney’s supervision. 

[5] On one occasion, while Mother was at work, J.P. was sitting on Minney’s lap

in the living room. Minney took off J.P.’s pants and underwear and then put 

his lips on J.P.’s “private part,” which J.P. referred to as the “front” where 

“little girls use to pee.” (Tr. p. 32). According to J.P., Minney moved his 

tongue around her private area and J.P. felt like Minney was “sucking on it.” 

(Tr. p. 33). Another time, Minney put J.P.’s mouth on his “private part.” (Tr. 

p. 36). According to J.P., Minney’s private part was the area that “little boys 

 

from the confidential records are “essential to the resolution of litigation[,]” we have included confidential 

information in this decision only to the extent necessary to resolve this appeal. Admin. R. 9(G)(7)(a)(ii)(c).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 4 of 14

use to pee.” (Tr. p. 37). J.P. also described Minney’s penis as “brown and 

cylinder shape” which was “[h]ard.” (Tr. p. 36). Both events occurred when 

J.P. was six years old. On another occasion, Minney was lying on the couch,

with J.P. sitting close to his penis. According to J.P., Minney had his hands 

around her hips. 

[6] Sometime after the above incidents, J.P. disclosed to Mother that Minney had 

touched her, but Mother failed to act on J.P.’s complaint. According to the 

probable cause affidavit, the above incidents made J.P. act out in a sexualized 

manner, such as kissing girls at school and asking them if they wanted to have 

sex with her. Also, while at Father’s and L.P.’s house, J.P. touched her twoyear-old half-sister’s private parts. Troubled by J.P.’s aberrant behavior, on 

March 31, 2014, L.P. questioned J.P. if anyone had “done something” to her. 

(Tr. p. 42). Mentioning each name at a time, L.P provided Father’s, Mother’s,

Minney’s and her own. J.P. answered in the negative on all names, but she 

wavered on Minney’s name. J.P. was afraid that she would get Minney into 

trouble. After further convincing, J.P. divulged to L.P. that Minney had 

touched her inappropriately. The disclosure left J.P. feeling worse, and she 

remained in the bedroom for a while. L.P. reported to Father that Minney had 

molested J.P. 

[7] Acting on the allegations, Father summoned Mother and Mother’s extended 

family for an emergency family meeting. The purpose of the meeting was to 

inquire about J.P.’s assertions, or if anyone had “seen any red flags or heard 

anything” that would allow Father to believe J.P.’s claims. (Tr. p. 61). The 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 5 of 14

meeting did not yield any results, but it was agreed that they would all keep an 

eye on J.P. After the meeting, Father went home where he picked up J.P. and

took her to the hospital for an evaluation. The hospital contacted Department 

of Child Services (DCS). DCS Family Case Manager Michelle Tackette (FCM 

Tackette) arrived at the hospital and took a report. The report was then sent to 

DCS Forensic Interviewer, Laura Fuhrmann (Fuhrmann), who interviewed 

J.P. on April 3, 2014. During the fifteen-minute video recorded interview, J.P. 

disclosed to Fuhrmann that Minney had molested her. FCM Tackette was 

watching the interview in another room across the hallway. After the 

interview, DCS contacted Detective Nicolle Lynn (Detective Lynn) of the 

Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department and provided her with J.P.’s 

report. 

[8] On June 25, 2014, the State filed an Information, charging Minney with Count 

I, II, and III, child molesting, Class A felonies; and Count IV, child molesting, 

a Class C felony. A jury trial was held on February 19, 2015. The State sought 

to introduce Father’s, Mother’s, L.P.’s, and J.P.’s testimony, as well as 

Fuhrmann’s interview of J.P. and Detective Lynn’s testimony. 

[9] During the trial, Fuhrmann stated that she is trained to interview children who 

have allegedly been sexually abused. Fuhrmann stated she used “Finding 

Words/Child First Protocol” methodologies to conduct the interview. (Tr. p. 

118). She explained that the methods involve building a rapport with the child;

making the child feel comfortable; talking about the child’s family; and going 

over an anatomical diagram with body parts where the child points out what 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 6 of 14

parts are acceptable to touch and those that are not. Fuhrmann’s observation of 

J.P. during the interview was that she “was very calm and able to communicate 

about what had happened. She felt comfortable in the room and was able to 

talk with me.” (Tr. p. 122). Also, Fuhrmann stated that J.P.’s assertions of the 

molestation were “pretty consistent.” (Tr. p. 124). Detective Lynn testified 

that her investigation involved viewing J.P.’s video recorded interview and also 

questioning FCM Tackette, Mother, Father, and J.P.’s extended family. 

Detective Lynn stated that formal charges do not always arise from an 

investigation; however, in this case, they did. 

[10] At the close of the evidence, Minney moved for a directed verdict on Count III,

arguing that there were only two potential acts of sexual deviate conduct which 

were covered in Counts I and II. After hearing arguments from both sides, the 

trial court granted Minney’s motion and dismissed Count III. Subsequently, 

the jury found Minney guilty of Counts I, II, and IV. On March 2, 2015, the 

trial court held Minney’s sentencing hearing where it merged Count IV into 

Count I, and then sentenced Minney to an executed sentence of thirty years 

each for both Class A felonies of child molesting in the Department of 

Correction (DOC). Minney’s sentences were to run concurrently. 

[11] Minney now appeals. Additional facts will be provided as necessary. 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 7 of 14

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

I. Admission of Evidence

[12] Minney first argues that it was fundamental error for the trial court to admit

Fuhrmann’s and Detective Lynn’s testimonies into evidence. We initially 

observe that the decision to admit or exclude evidence is within a trial court’s 

sound discretion and is afforded great deference on appeal. Carpenter v. State, 

786 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind. 2003). An abuse of discretion occurs when the trial 

court’s decision is clearly erroneous and against the logic and effect of the facts 

and circumstances before it or it misinterprets the law. Id. at 703. When 

reviewing the admissibility of evidence, we consider only the evidence in favor 

of the trial court’s ruling and any unrefuted evidence in the defendant's favor. 

Redding v. State, 844 N.E.2d 1067, 1069 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006).

[13] Because Minney did not object to the admission of this evidence at trial, he has 

waived appellate review of this issue. See Manuel v. State, 793 N.E.2d 1215, 

1218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003), trans. denied. However, as noted above, Minney 

attempts to preserve the issue, claiming that the trial court committed 

fundamental error in admitting Fuhrmann’s and Detective Lynn’s testimonies 

into evidence. 

[14] The fundamental error exception is very narrow, and it arises only when there 

are “clearly blatant violations of basic and elementary principles, and the harm 

or potential for harm could not be denied.” Warriner v. State, 435 N.E.2d 562, 

563 (Ind. 1982). To be fundamental error, the resulting error must deny the 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 8 of 14

defendant fundamental due process. Id. In determining whether the error in 

the introduction of evidence affected an appellant’s substantial rights, we assess 

the probable impact of the evidence on the jury. Manual, 793 N.E.2d at 1219.

[15] Specifically, Minney argues that Fuhrmann’s and Detective Lynn’s testimonies 

added no new factual evidence but were only offered to “vouch” and “bolster” 

J.P.’s testimony. (Appellant’s Br. p. 6). Put differently, Minney argues that 

their testimonies were the functional equivalent of telling the jury that J.P. was 

telling the truth. 

[16] Vouching testimony is generally prohibited under Indiana Evidence Rule 

704(b), which states: “Witnesses may not testify to opinions concerning intent, 

guilt, or innocence in a criminal case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether 

a witness has testified truthfully; or legal conclusions.” Such testimony is an 

invasion of the province of the jurors in determining what weight they should 

place upon a witness’s testimony. Bean v. State, 15 N.E.3d 12, 18 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2014), trans. denied; Gutierrez v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1030, 1034 (Ind. Ct. App. 

2012). It is essential that the trier of fact determine the credibility of the 

witnesses and the weight of the evidence. Gutierrez, 961 N.E.2d at 1034. 

[17] Minney cites to Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1232 (Ind. 2012). In that 

case, our supreme court observed that “[f]or over two decades our courts have 

adhered to relaxed evidentiary rules concerning the testimony of children who 

are called upon as witnesses to describe sexual conduct.” Id. In so doing, 

Indiana had been part of a minority of jurisdictions that allow “some form of 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 9 of 14

vouching of child witness testimony in child molestation cases.” Id. at 1235. 

Disagreeing with the previous line of cases, the Hoglund court enunciated a new 

rule:

[W]e expressly overrule that portion of Lawrence allowing for “some 

accrediting of the child witness in the form of opinions from parents, 

teachers, and others having adequate experience with the child, that 

the child was not prone to exaggerate or fantasize about sexual 

matters.” [Lawrence v. State, 464 N.E.2d 923, 925 (Ind.1984)]. This 

indirect vouching testimony is little different than testimony that the 

child witness is telling the truth.

Id. at 1237. More broadly, the court disallowed testimony by any witness, 

whether lay or expert, that another witness—including a child witness—is or is 

not telling the truth. Id. 

[18] In the instant case, during direct examination, the State questioned Fuhrmann 

as follows: 

Q. [] How long did your interview with J.P. take?

A. It was approximately 15 minutes.

Q. Okay. During that interview, did she make a disclosure to you 

with regard to sexual abuse involving [] Minney?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. Did she at all sway back and forth in what she was telling 

you during that interview?

A. No.

Q. Okay. Would you say she was pretty consistent in that time that 

you talked to her?

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And the technique that you previously described the 

rapport building, open-ended questions, and is that the technique that 

you used with her?
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 10 of 14

A. Yes.

Q. Okay. And who observed this interview?

A. The caseworker, Michelle Tackett.

Q. Okay. What’s the purpose of that? Why have somebody observe?

A. My role in the interview is just to ask the questions and to gain the 

information. I have no other role in the case other than just to do that. 

Whereas, the caseworker, it’s her job then to assess and make any 

determination of what the next steps will be. Also, when you have 

someone observing the interview, if there is something that I may have 

left out or something that I was unable to notice, she’s able to notice 

that because two eyes are better than one.

Q. Got it. So you were just kind of collecting any information the 

child will give you?

A. Yes.

(Tr. pp. 124-25).

Viewing Fuhrmann’s responses from the above excerpt, we do not believe that 

they carry a vouching force. Fuhrmann’s role was to collect the information, 

and make no assessment regarding the case. The closest Fuhrmann came in her 

testimony to providing what Minney mischaracterizes as indirect vouching 

would be Fuhrmann’s testimony that J.P.’s narration of Minney molesting her 

was pretty consistent. Even if we were to assume that this was improper 

vouching, we cannot agree that its admission resulted in fundamental error. At 

issue in this case was the credibility of J.P., who was thoroughly questioned on 

cross-examination and whose testimony did not waver from that given during 

direct-examination. The testimony of a sole child witness is sufficient to sustain 

a conviction of child molesting. Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433, 436 (Ind. 

2002). In this regard, we conclude that Fuhrmann’s response that J.P.’s 

testimony was consistent was not so prejudicial to Minney as to make a fair 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 11 of 14

trial impossible. Minney has not established error in the admission of 

Fuhrmann’s testimony regarding “vouching,” let alone fundamental error. 

[19] With regards to Minney’s claim that Detective Lynn also vouched for J.P.’s 

testimony, we note that during the State’s case-in-chief, the following exchange 

took place between the State and Detective Lynn:

Q. You did watch the tape, right?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. And did you speak to anyone after that?

A. Yes.

Q. Who did you [] speak to[?] [F]amily members of J.P.?

A. Yes, I talked to the [DCS] worker. I also talked to [] [M]other, 

[F]ather, her stepmother, maternal grandmother, paternal 

grandmother, and her aunt.

Q. And eventually you screened the case, right?

A. That’s correct.

Q. And what is screening a case?

A. Screening a case basically means that I gather all the information 

that I have about a case. So all of my interviews, any additional 

evidence that I might have, and kind of put into a bundle [] and give it 

to the prosecutor.

Q. And did you meet with the prosecutor to go over this case?

A. Yes, I did.

Q. Do [] formal charges result from every investigation []?

A. Absolutely not.

Q. And so formal charges were filed in this case, right?

A. Yes.

(Tr. pp. 140-41). 

[20] Minney argues that Detective Lynn’s “statement that charges do not result from 

every investigation but did from this one[,] implicitly informed the jury that the 

evidence in this case, which consisted solely of the testimony of J.P., was 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 12 of 14

worthy to [believe].” (Appellant’s Br. p. 8). Again we disagree. The jury 

already knew that charges had been filed against Minney, otherwise there 

would be no trial. Moreover, given the context of Detective Lynn’s 

questioning, she did not specifically comment on any of the things precluded by 

Rule 704(b). Detective Lynn’s response was an answer to a general question in

her role as an investigator; therefore, it cannot be said to be vouching. For the 

foregoing reasons, Minney’s argument that Detective Lynn’s testimony 

amounted to vouching also fails. 

II. Inappropriate Sentence

[21] In his last argument, Minney claims that his concurrent thirty-year sentences for 

the two Counts of child molesting is inappropriate in light of the nature of the 

offenses and his character. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that we “may 

revise a sentence authorized by statute if, after due consideration of the trial 

court’s decision, [we find] that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the 

nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The burden is on the 

defendant to persuade the appellate court that his or her sentence is 

inappropriate. Childress v. State, 848 N.E.2d 1073, 1080 (Ind. 2006). 

“Ultimately the length of the aggregate sentence and how it is to be served are 

the issues that matter.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008). 

Whether we regard a sentence as appropriate at the end of the day turns on our 

sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage 

done to others, and a myriad of other considerations that come to light in a 

given case. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 13 of 14

[22] The advisory sentence is the starting point the legislature has selected as an 

appropriate sentence for the crime committed. Abbott v. State, 961 N.E.2d 1016, 

1019 (Ind. 2012). For his Class A felonies, Minney faced a sentencing range of 

twenty to fifty years, with the advisory sentence being thirty years. Ind. Code § 

35-50-2-4. Here, the trial court imposed concurrent sentences of thirty years for 

each Count. 

[23] Turning to the nature of the offense, Minney argues that there was “no physical 

harm to [J.P.,] and there was no allegation or suggestions that threats were 

made.” (Appellant’s Br. p. 16). We find it offensive that Minney attempts to 

diminish the seriousness of his offenses by claiming that J.P. suffered no serious 

physical harm. Minney was Mother’s live-in boyfriend, and J.P. felt kinship 

toward Minney as she regarded him as stepfather. While Mother was away at 

work, Minney used J.P. to satisfy his sexual needs at least three times. 

Additionally, the significant harm to J.P. as a result of these crimes makes 

Minney’s offenses even more egregious. J.P. became increasingly sexual, in 

that, she started kissing girls at school, and she also fondled her little sister’s 

private parts. It is obvious that J.P. will suffer emotional scars that come with 

losing her innocence at the hands of someone masquerading as her protector. 

For these reasons, we cannot say that Minney’s sentence is inappropriate in 

light of the nature of the offenses.

[24] With respect to Minney’s character, he notes to us that he has one prior juvenile 

arrest. Minney further suggests that we take into account that he has no adult 

criminal history, he had graduated from college, he was gainfully employed, 
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 49A02-1503-CR-172 | October 15, 2015 Page 14 of 14

and had otherwise lived a legally and morally commendable lifestyle. The fact 

that he molested J.P. belies his claim to have been living a largely law-abiding

and moral life. Also, we find that even though Minney’s criminal history is 

minor and that he was a productive member of society, he violated his position 

of trust with J.P., and that speaks volumes of his unsavory character. See McCoy 

v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1259, 1264 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (being in a position of trust 

aggravates the charge of child molesting and concerns the character of the 

offender). Here, Minney has failed to meet his burden in persuading us that his 

sentence is inappropriate in light of his character. 

[25] After due consideration of the evidence before us, including the fact that a 

concurrent sentence was ordered in the instant case, we cannot say that 

Minney’s thirty-year executed sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of 

the offenses and his character.

CONCLUSION

[26] Based on the foregoing, we conclude that (1) the trial court did not commit a 

fundamental error by admitting Fuhrmann’s and Detective Lynn’s testimonies; 

(2) Minney’s sentence is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offenses 

and his character. 

[27] Affirmed.

[28] Brown, J. and Altice, J. concur