David Bruce Schocke, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

[1] David Bruce Schocke appeals his conviction for Class A felony child molesting.¹ Schocke raises a single issue for our review, namely, whether the trial court abused its discretion when it did not permit Schocke to question a victim-witness about purportedly inconsistent statements she had made to another victim-witness.

[2] We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In 2005, Schocke married D.B., and, in 2006, D.B. gave birth to their daughter, A.S. In 2010, the family moved onto a three-acre parcel in Noble County. Around that same time at that property, Schocke and A.S. were outside alone. Schocke “pinn[ed]” A.S. down, removed her clothes, and raped her. Tr. Vol. 4, p. 84.

[4] In 2013, Schocke and D.B. divorced, and A.S. lived with her mother. In 2015, A.S. made friends with a classmate, P.P., whose parents, Gary and Jennifer, had recently divorced. Around that same time, Schocke began to date Jennifer.

[5] When P.P. was about ten years old, Schocke moved into Jennifer's home in Kendallville. Jennifer struggled with substance abuse, and, one night when P.P. was visiting her, Jennifer “passed out” on the couch. Id. at 216. Schocke came home after that point and then forcibly moved P.P. into the bedroom, held her down, and raped her.

[6] When P.P. was thirteen years old, Jennifer committed suicide. Afterward, A.S. recognized that P.P. was “in a horrible state,” and A.S. “wanted to make her feel better.” Id. at 72. A.S. decided to tell P.P. that A.S. could still communicate with Jennifer because A.S. thought that, “if her mom was there to support her[,] ․ P.P. wouldn't be in such a dark place.” Id. But A.S. knew that she was not actually conversing with Jennifer. Likewise, P.P. “want[ed] it to be real because [she] was still ․ grieving ․ , but also, ․ just common sense of it all, [she] knew not to believe it that much.” Id. at 229.

[7] In May 2021, A.S. was spending the night with P.P. at Gary's house when the two disclosed to each other that Schocke had raped them. The two then disclosed to Gary, who contacted authorities.

[8] The State charged Schocke, in relevant part and across two cause numbers, with Class A felony child molesting of A.S. and Level 1 felony child molesting of P.P. The court held a consolidated jury trial on the charges at which both A.S. and P.P. testified. A.S. testified first. During her testimony she acknowledged that she had told P.P. about being able to talk to Jennifer, and she explained why she had invented that narrative. She also added that she did not remember “everything” that she had said to P.P. Id. at 102.

[9] During his cross-examination of A.S., the following exchange occurred:

Q Did you tell P.P. that [Jennifer] put you on notice that there was a journal that [Schocke] kept of all of his sexual exploits with you?

A No.

Q That included drawings?

A No, I've never heard of anything like that.

Q That's the first you're hearing this?

A Yes.

* * *

Q You told P.P. you could communicate with her mother, correct?

A Possibly. I know I told her that her mom was okay ․ and that her mom loved her. I don't remember everything I told her.

Q Okay. But to get P.P. to believe that, you would need to tell her that you're communicating with her?

A Maybe. I don't know.

Q You don't remember?

A I don't know ․ exactly[ ] what I told her.

* * *

Q Do you not know[ ] because you can't remember?

A Yeah, I don't remember everything I told P.P.

Id. at 102-03.

[10] During Schocke's later cross-examination of P.P., he made the following offer of proof to the court:

Q [W]asn't there a book or journal that [A.S.] said that ․ [Schocke] had created that [Jennifer] had found?

* * *

A ․ I remember hearing about it, like, one time, I think, she had said something about, like, a journal, along the lines of it basically had documentation, and that she had seen ․ it herself. Not like, oh, but kind of confirmation with the whole talking to my mom thing. But that's about it.

Q So, she said that she remembered a book[ ] herself?

A She thought so, yes.

Q But that your mom had also seen it, she heard from your mom, after she died?

A Yes.

* * *

Q And that [your] mom had destroyed it?

A Yes.

Q Okay. Again, this book supposedly consisted of some pictures or drawings?

* * *

A ․ I think pictures and writing[ ] is what she said.

Q That [Schocke] had prepared?

A Yes.

Q To be clear, you never saw such a book?

A No.

Tr. Vol. 5, pp. 5-7.

[11] The State also asked P.P. the following questions during the offer of proof:

[Q] P.P., did A.S. ever say that your mom blamed [Schocke] for her death?

[A] No.

[Q] Did anything A.S. sa[id] make you create these allegations against [Schocke]?

[A] No.

Q Did any of these alleged statements drastically influence you?

A No.

Q Did any of these statements manipulate the way that you felt about [Schocke]?

A No.

Id. at 9.

[12] Schocke then moved to use P.P.’s offer-of-proof testimony to impeach A.S.’s testimony regarding Schocke's alleged journal. The trial court denied that request after noting that “part of A.S.’s testimony was that she could not remember everything she told P.P. And so[ ] that stops the ability to impeach A.S. through this ․ evidence.” Id. at 19.

[13] The jury found Schocke guilty of Class A felony child molesting of A.S. and Level 1 felony child molesting of P.P. The trial court entered its judgment of conviction and sentenced Schocke accordingly, and this appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[14] On appeal, Schocke argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his request to use P.P.’s offer-to-prove testimony to impeach A.S. about the purported journal. A trial court has broad discretion regarding the admission of evidence, and its decisions are reviewed only for abuse of discretion. Hall v. State, 177 N.E.3d 1183, 1193 (Ind. 2021). We will reverse only if the trial court's ruling was clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before it and the errors affect a party's substantial rights. Id.

[15] According to Schocke, P.P.’s testimony was admissible to impeach A.S. under Indiana Evidence Rule 613(b), which provides that “[e]xtrinsic evidence of a witness's prior inconsistent statement is admissible only if the witness is given an opportunity to explain or deny the statement and an adverse party is given an opportunity to examine the witness about it, or if justice so requires.” As we have explained:

“Impeachment” is defined as the act of discrediting a witness, as by catching the witness in a lie or by demonstrating that the witness has been convicted of a criminal offense. The Indiana Rules of Evidence allow the impeachment of a witness, including through the use of extrinsic evidence.

Trial courts may consider a variety of relevant factors in making the determination to admit or exclude extrinsic evidence under Evidence Rule 613, such as the availability of the witness, the potential prejudice that may arise from recalling a witness only for impeachment purposes, the significance afforded to the credibility of the witness who is being impeached, and any other factors that are relevant to the interests of justice.

Hall v. State, 231 N.E.3d 868, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024) (cleaned up), trans. denied.

[16] The trial court denied Schocke's request to impeach A.S. because, in her testimony about the purported journal, even though A.S. had said that she had “never heard of anything like that,” she also made clear that she did not remember “everything” she had said to P.P. and that she did not remember “exactly” all of the details of those conversations. Tr. Vol. 4, pp. 102-03. Our Supreme Court has made clear that it is “within the ambit of the trial court's discretion to determine inconsistency” between testimony and a prior statement. Dunlap v. State, 761 N.E.2d 837, 845 (Ind. 2002). And, again, our standard in reviewing the court's exercise of that discretion is limited to the record most favorable to the court's judgment.

[17] A.S.’s testimony is exactly how the trial court recalled it—although she stated that she had not heard of anything like the purported journal before, she also made clear that she did not remember everything about her conversations with P.P. Thus, P.P.’s ensuing testimony in the offer of proof was not inconsistent with A.S.’s testimony but simply a more detailed recollection. Accordingly, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion when it denied Schocke's request to impeach A.S. about the purported journal.

[18] For all of these reasons, we affirm Schocke's conviction for Class A felony child molesting.

[19] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Schocke does not appeal his conviction for Level 1 felony child molesting.

Mathias, Judge.

Judges Brown and Kenworthy concur. Brown, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.