COA: Military service not a mitigator in child molesting case

A man convicted and sentenced to 66 years behind bars for molesting his former fiancee’s daughter couldn’t convince the Indiana Court of Appeals that his extensive military service was a mitigating factor in his case. 

When Nathaniel Hale became engaged to S.F., he moved into her home where S.F. lived with her then-10-year-old daughter K.F. During a four-month period that they lived together, Hale molested K.F numerous times while she was asleep and awake. 

Upon a breakup of their engagement, S.F. informed K.F. that Hale was moving out of their home indefinitely and K.F. told her mother about what Hale had done. He was later charged with seven counts of child molesting, five as Level 1 felonies and two as Level 4 felonies. He was found guilty as charged in Hamilton Superior Court.

On appeal, Hale argued there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him. He also alleged the sentence was inappropriate.

But the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his sentence and convictions in Nathaniel Hale v. State of Indiana, 18A-CR-2920, rejecting all of his assertions.

It first found there was sufficient evidence to support Hale’s convictions and that a reasonable factfinder could determine from the evidence that Hale committed the crimes. It also found the trial court did not abuse its discretion in finding an aggravator based on the “deliberate nature” of Hale’s crimes, “which were not limited to a single incident but manifested a habitual pattern of conduct.”

Neither, the appellate panel found, was the trial court incorrect in not identifying as mitigators Hale’s military service, disability and employment history.

“Hale emphasizes his ‘extensive’ military service over the course of a decade, including tours in Iraq and Afghanistan, his physical and mental health issues related to his service, and his honorable discharge. However, military service is not necessarily a mitigating circumstance,” Judge Edward Najam Jr.  wrote.

“Given the nature of Hale’s crimes, which reflect conduct especially incompatible with that expected of a member of our military, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it declined to adopt this proffered mitigator,” the panel concluded.

Lastly, the appellate court found no issue with Hale’s sentence, finding it was not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense or his character. Although he alleged to have led a “significantly law-abiding life,” among other things, the appellate court concluded Hale’s past criminal history of marijuana possession, resisting law enforcement, committing trespass and twice violating probation did not reflect good character.

“Finally, we agree with the State’s assessment that the offenses ‘were not isolated incidents of poor decision-making; they were predatory acts by a man who intentionally abused a relationship of trust’ with a ten-year-old girl,” the panel concluded.