MOFFATT v. STATE (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Christina L. Moffatt appeals the five-year sentence imposed following her conviction for Level 5 felony promoting prostitution. She claims that the trial court abused its discretion in its consideration of aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

[2] We affirm.

Facts & Procedural History

[3] A.B. gave birth to a child at Columbus Regional Hospital on July 6, 2023. Bartholomew County Adult Protective Services was contacted by hospital staff out of concern that A.B. might have been the victim of sexual abuse due to her low intellectual functining. A neuropsychological evaluation conducted on A.B. that same day established that she did not have the cognitive ability to consent to a sexual relationship, as she functioned at the level of a toddler. Thus, on July 7, 2023, the Bartholomew County Sheriff's Office began a rape investigation.

[4] Before giving birth, A.B. had been living for some time in a trailer in Jonesville, Indiana, with Moffatt, Moffatt's long-term boyfriend Brandon Jacobs, and their young son.¹ Christopher Lovell lived in another trailer across the street.

[5] During 2022, Jacobs and Lovell engaged in sexual intercourse with A.B. on many occasions. Moffatt witnessed each of the men have sexual intercourse with A.B., and Moffatt also performed sexual acts on A.B., including using sex toys on her. The various sexual encounters were often photographed or filmed using Moffatt's cell phone. The cell phone also contained nude pictures of A.B.

[6] Around August 2022, Moffatt and Jacobs began using “a ‘chat line’ and an OnlyFans account to distribute sexual material involving [A.B.]” Appendix at 14. Through these methods, Moffatt began communicating with Jon Arnold of Salem, Indiana. Arnold then came to Moffatt's trailer and engaged in oral sex with A.B. while Moffatt watched. Thereafter, Moffatt and Lovell transported A.B. to Arnold's Salem residence up to fifteen times between late 2022 and early 2023 so that Arnold could engage in sexual conduct with A.B. Moffatt took pictures and videos of these encounters. In exchange for these visits, Arnold provided Moffatt, Jacobs, and Lovell with money. According to Lovell, the agreement Jacobs struck with Arnold was for A.B. to visit Arnold “so many times a month for $600 a month.” Id.

[7] On September 12, 2023, the State charged Moffatt in Bartholomew Circuit Court with Level 3 felony rape (Count 1) and Level 4 felony promotion of human sexual trafficking (Count 2). On September 5, 2024, the State moved to dismiss Count 1 due to venue concerns and to amend the charges to add a count of Level 5 felony promoting prostitution (Count 3). The trial court granted these motions. The parties then entered into a negotiated plea agreement in which Moffatt pleaded guilty to Count 3 and the State dismissed the remaining count, Count 2.

[8] The trial court held a sentencing hearing on October 24, 2024. Moffatt testified at the hearing and placed blame on Jacobs, claiming that he was controlling, she feared him, and he made them visit Arnold. Moffatt also claimed that she had “[t]he same” cognitive issues as A.B. Transcript at 31. Further, while Moffatt acknowledged that she had jail rule violations while in Bartholomew County Jail pending sentencing, she blamed these violations on other inmates that were bothering her. She asked the trial court to impose the advisory sentence of three years ² and to suspend all but time served.

[9] The trial court issued an oral and written sentencing statement. For mitigating circumstances, it found: Moffatt had no prior criminal history, she cooperated with law enforcement during the investigation, she pleaded guilty, and she has cognitive disabilities, resulting in her being on disability since childhood. The court noted, however, that Moffatt never expressed remorse and that she attempted to minimize her role in the crime when, in the court's opinion, Moffatt knew how to “get out of [the] situation” but “didn't.” Id. at 42.

[10] For aggravating circumstances, the trial court primarily focused on the “disturbingly serious” nature of the offense. Id. That is, the sexual exploitation of A.B., an individual with the cognitive ability of a toddler, continued for months, involved multiple people having sex with her on many occasions, and “end[ed] up in her pregnancy.” Id. at 43. The court noted that even Moffatt herself had sexual relations with A.B. and that Moffatt took photographs and videos of the sexual acts, which were distributed online to others. The court explained, “all those things absolutely exceed the elements necessary to prove ․ this crime.” Id. at 44.

[11] The trial court found several additional aggravating circumstances: Moffatt was in a position of trust over A.B., whom Moffatt knew to have low cognitive ability; the lasting effect on A.B., not only emotionally, but the fact that she now has a child; Moffatt's young son was in the home during the offense; Moffatt showed a lack of responsibility and remorse; and she committed two jail rule violations while the case was pending. Further, with respect to Moffatt's request for a suspended sentence, the trial court noted that not imposing an executed sentence would unduly depreciate the seriousness of the offense.

[12] Ultimately, the trial court determined that the aggravators “far outweigh” the mitigators and imposed a five-year executed sentence. Id. Moffatt now appeals.

Discussion & Decision

[13] Moffatt claims that the trial court abused its discretion in its consideration of certain aggravating and mitigating circumstances.

“[S]entencing decisions rest within the sound discretion of the trial court and are reviewed on appeal only for an abuse of discretion.” Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482, 490 (Ind. 2007), clarified on reh'g, 875 N.E.2d 218 (2007). When imposing a sentence for a felony offense, a trial court must enter a sentencing statement explaining the reasons it imposed a particular sentence. Id. A trial court may abuse its discretion by failing to enter this statement, by overlooking reasons that are clearly supported by the record and advanced for consideration, or by considering reasons that are not supported by the record or are improper.

Carranza v. State, 184 N.E.3d 712, 717 (Ind. Ct. App. 2022). Further, “the relative weight or value assignable to reasons properly found is not subject to review for abuse of discretion.” Green v. State, 65 N.E.3d 620, 637 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016), trans. denied.

[14] Moffatt's arguments on appeal are not well developed. She initially claims that the trial court ignored her lack of criminal history. This is incorrect. The trial court plainly listed as a mitigating circumstance “no criminal history, this is her first criminal conviction.” Appendix at 48; see also Transcript at 42. To the extent that Moffatt is challenging the weight given by the trial court to this mitigator, this is not subject to review. See Green, 65 N.E.2d at 637. Nor may we review the weight given to the mitigating circumstance, as found by the trial court, that Moffatt has her own cognitive limitations.

[15] Moffatt then purports to challenge certain aggravating circumstances found by the trial court. But she does not support her contentions with cogent reasoning or citations to relevant authority, as required by Ind. Appellate Rule 46(A)(8)(a). Thus, Moffatt has waived these contentions. See Miller v. Patel, 212 N.E.3d 639, 657 (Ind. 2023) (discussing App. R. 46(A)(8)’s requirements and the resulting waiver for failure to support arguments with appropriate citations to legal authority).

[16] Waiver notwithstanding, we observe that the trial court properly considered the seriousness of the offense and its effect on A.B. It is well settled that “[t]he nature and particularized circumstances surrounding the offense is a proper aggravating factor.” Harris v. State, 163 N.E.3d 938, 955 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021), trans. denied; see also McCoy v. State, 856 N.E.2d 1259, 1263 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (“Generally, the nature and circumstances of a crime are proper aggravators so long as the trial court takes into consideration facts not needed to prove the elements of the offense.”). The trial court's sentencing statement shows that it carefully considered the particularly disturbing facts before it, which greatly exceeded what was necessary to establish promoting prostitution. This was not an abuse of discretion. Further, there was evidence in the record to support the trial court's findings that Moffatt lacked remorse and tried to minimize her own role in the offenses against A.B., and we cannot reassess the proper weight to give this aggravating circumstance.

[17] Judgment affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Moffatt and A.B. had been friends in high school, attending special education classes together in 2010, and they became reacquainted in 2018, when Moffatt began a relationship with A.B.’s uncle/caregiver, Patrick McDowell.

2.   The sentencing range for a Level 5 felony is one to six years, with an advisory sentence of three years. Ind. Code § 35-50-2-6(b).

Altice, Chief Judge.

Brown, J. and Tavitas, J., concur.