Scott E. VanArsdale, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2025)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Scott E. VanArsdale was convicted, following a jury trial, of two counts of child molestation, as Level 1 felonies; one count of child molesting, as a Level 4 felony; one count of criminal confinement, as a Level 6 felony; one count of sexual battery, as a Level 6 felony; one count of neglect of a dependent, as a Level 6 felony; one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as a Class A misdemeanor; and one count of resisting arrest, as a Class A misdemeanor. He was also found to be a habitual offender. VanArsdale appeals and contends that the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded as evidence the forensic interview of one of his victims. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] VanArsdale and Taryn VanArsdale (“Taryn”) met through an online dating service in early 2019. By November, they had moved in together. The two married and ultimately moved to a house on Lewisburg Road in Cass County. At first, it was VanArsdale, Taryn, and two of Taryn's children from a prior relationship who lived in the house. However, two more of Taryn's children from different prior relationships, K.L. and S.C., moved in. Taryn then gave birth to another child, C., who was a child of VanArsdale. In 2020, Taryn's nieces, T.L. and her sister, also moved in.

[3] Sometime in 2021, when S.C. was seven or eight years old, she and VanArsdale were in a bedroom together. VanArsdale and S.C. were in bed, and VanArsdale Court of Appeals of Indiana | Memorandum Decision 25A-CR-1273 | October 24, 2025 Page 2 of 11 took S.C.’s shorts “partly off.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 53. VanArsdale then touched S.C.’s vagina first with his hand and then with his “boy's private part.” Id. at 54. VanArsdale's penis touched S.C.’s vagina “skin to skin” and between “the lips[.]” Id. at 54-55. VanArsdale moved his penis “[u]p and down[.]” Id. at 56. VanArsdale then fell asleep, and S.C. went to her bedroom.

[4] In 2021 or 2022, VanArsdale and T.L., who was nine or ten years old, were watching TV together in the living room. T.L. was sitting on the couch, and VanArsdale was sitting next to her. VanArsdale touched T.L.’s vagina on top of her underwear, and he moved his hand “up and down” for approximately ten to fifteen seconds. Id. at 177. T.L. was “uncomfortable,” so she “scooted over.” Id. at 178. At that point, VanArsdale left the room.

[5] In February 2022, thirteen-year-old K.L. was at home with VanArsdale when he “called [her] into the bedroom.” Id. at 147. VanArsdale closed the door, sat on the bed, and told K.L. that she was in trouble for vaping. VanArsdale then started to talk to K.L. in a “sexually explicit” manner and told K.L. that he wanted to perform oral sex on her. Id. at 149. K.L. started crying, and VanArsdale got up from the bed, grabbed K.L. by the wrists, and “pinned [her] up against the wall.” Id. at 150. VanArsdale then asked K.L. “if [she] liked it.” Id. at 152. K.L. was able to get out of VanArsdale's grip and leave the room. K.L. told Taryn about the incident, but Taryn did not believe her.

[6] In March, Taryn's sixteen-year-old half sister, J.Y., moved in. VanArsdale would talk to J.Y. about “his sexual preferences” with Taryn. Tr. Vol. 3 at 239. VanArsdale would also ask J.Y. if she and her boyfriend were having sex, and he would make jokes about J.Y.’s boyfriend's “penis size” or “make fun of him if he had a boner.” Id. at 240-41.

[7] On Easter 2022, VanArsdale and Taryn had some friends over. At the end of the evening, Taryn drove the friends home, leaving J.Y. home alone with VanArsdale. VanArsdale gave J.Y. four or five shots of alcohol after threatening to take her phone away if she did not drink them. J.Y. started to feel ill, so she laid down on her stomach on the couch. VanArsdale went to the couch and sat on J.Y.’s “lower back and butt.” Id. at 245. VanArsdale was “moving his hips side to side” and telling J.Y. to wake up. Id. An ad on TV began playing, and VanArsdale grabbed J.Y. from the couch and made her “slow dance” with him. Id. at 246. J.Y. attempted to return to the couch, but VanArsdale “pulled [her] back in by [her] waist.” Id. When the ad was over, J.Y. went back to the couch. VanArsdale went over to the couch and “started poking and tickling [J.Y.’s] ribs,” and he “took [her] pants and pulled them down” to “a few inches below [her] butt.” Id. at 247. VanArsdale then sent J.Y. a Snapchat message telling her that she “should wear [her] underwear around the house more often.” Id.

[8] On December 17, 2023, S.C. was at home with VanArsdale. At some point that evening, VanArsdale was in the kitchen, and he asked S.C. to come help cook some macaroni and cheese. While S.C. was filling a pot with water, VanArsdale put his hands on her hips, which made her “[r]eally uncomfortable.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 37. VanArsdale left the kitchen, told S.C. to follow him, and went to his bedroom. VanArsdale walked up behind S.C. and again put his hands on her hips. VanArsdale pulled S.C. close, and she could feel his “private area” pressing into her. Id. at 40. VanArsdale then sat on the bed and had S.C. sit next to him. At that point, VanArsdale touched S.C.’s vagina underneath her clothes and moved his hand “up and down.” Id. at 47.

[9] S.C. left the room and messaged a friend: “He touch my pu**y but don't tell the cops[.]” Ex. Vol. 6 at 9 (errors and asterisks in original). S.C.’s friend told another friend, who ultimately called the police. Officers with the Cass County Sheriff's Department and a Family Case Manager with the Indiana Department of Child Services arrived at VanArsdale's house in the late hours of December 17 into the early morning hours of December 18. At the same time, Taryn arrived home and was made aware of S.C.’s allegations. Taryn removed the other children from the home and took S.C. to the hospital.

[10] At the hospital, S.C. underwent an examination by a sexual assault nurse examiner and a physician. S.C. was “very quiet” and “very scared.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 88. The nurse found an area of bright redness “extending from the hymen and the fossa navicularis to the posterior fourchette[.]” Id. at 91. The nurse classified it as a “laceration abrasion,” and determined that it was “consistent with [S.C.’s] disclosure.” Id. at 91-92. The physician noted that the injury “lack[ed] signs of healing” and determined that it was a “new injury.” Id. at 114. The physician also noted that the injury was “indicative of genital penetration.” Id. at 115.

[11] On December 20, Taryn took S.C., J.Y., and K.L. to a child advocacy center, where they each submitted to an interview. During the course of the interviews, which were recorded, all three girls “disclosed abuse.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 210-211. Thereafter, officers obtained a warrant to arrest VanArsdale. When an officer attempted to serve the warrant, VanArsdale did not comply. He “stiffened up” when the officer attempted to place handcuffs on him, and he started “yanking” and “dragging” the officer around. Tr. Vol. 4 at 188. The officer was “unable to gain control” of VanArsdale and ultimately had to call for backup to assist. Id.

[12] The State charged VanArsdale with two counts of child molesting, as Level 1 felonies (Counts 1 and 2); one count of criminal confinement, as a Level 6 felony (Count 3); two counts of sexual battery, as Level 6 felonies (Counts 4 and 5); one count of neglect of a dependent, as a Level 6 felony (Count 6); one count of contributing to the delinquency of a minor, as a Class A misdemeanor (Count 7); one count of resisting arrest, as a Class A misdemeanor (Count 8); and one count of child molesting, as a Level 4 felony (Count 9). Counts 1 and 2 related to VanArsdale's offenses against S.C.; Counts 3 and 4 related to his offenses against K.L.; Counts 5 through 6 related to his offenses against J.Y.; and Count 9 related to his offenses against T.L. The State also alleged that VanArsdale was a habitual offender.

[13] The trial court held a bifurcated jury trial on VanArsdale's charges. During trial, the State called S.C. as a witness, and she testified to VanArsdale's actions toward her. On cross-examination, VanArsdale highlighted inconsistencies between S.C.’s trial testimony and statements she had made in her interview at the child advocacy center (“CAC interview”). For instance, VanArsdale asked if S.C. remembered “telling the person that was asking [her] questions that day that [he] took [her] into the bathroom instead of the bedroom[.]” Id. at 63. S.C. answered in the affirmative. VanArsdale then asked: “Okay. Today you're saying bedroom. Then you said bathroom. Which one do you remember it being?” Id. at 64. S.C. responded: “Bathroom.” Id. VanArsdale also pointed out that, during the trial, S.C. had testified that, during the encounter in 2021, VanArsdale's “body was moving” but that she had said in the CAC interview that it “was not moving.” Id. at 64-65. And VanArsdale pointed out that S.C. had told a friend that the intercourse had involved her butt but that she had testified that it involved her vagina. On re-direct, the State attempted to clarify the discrepancies between her two statements.

[14] VanArsdale then asked to play the recording of S.C.’s CAC interview for the jury. He argued that both parties had attempted to characterize S.C.’s statements during that interview but that “the more fair thing and the better thing for the jury and for the interest of justice would be to simply play” the interview for the jury so that they “can draw their own conclusions about what was said and what wasn't said.” Id. at 75. The State responded that the CAC interview was “hearsay” and “irrelevant.” Id. The State also alleged that any impeachment of S.C. had occurred when VanArsdale confronted her with the prior statements. The court found that the parties had “the best evidence here, right here, in court. She's live testimony. She's willing to answer any questions and I think she's doing really well.” Id. at 76. The court denied VanArsdale's motion.

[15] Following the first phase of the trial, the jury found VanArsdale guilty of the nine charged offenses. Then, following the second phase, they found that he was a habitual offender. The court then sentenced VanArsdale to an aggregate term of 138 years in the Department of Correction. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[16] VanArsdale contends that the court abused its discretion when it excluded S.C.’s CAC interview as evidence.¹ As our Supreme Court has stated:

Generally, a trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence is accorded “a great deal of deference” on appeal. Tynes v. State, 650 N.E.2d 685, 687 (Ind. 1995). “Because the trial court is best able to weigh the evidence and assess witness credibility, we review its rulings on admissibility for abuse of discretion” and only reverse “if a ruling is ‘clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights.’ ” Carpenter v. State, 18 N.E.3d 998, 1001 (Ind. 2014) (quoting Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 260 (Ind. 2013)).

Hall v. State, 36 N.E.3d 459, 466 (Ind. 2015). On appeal, VanArsdale asserts that the court abused its discretion when it excluded the interview because it was not hearsay, it was admissible under Indiana's protected person statute, and it was “plainly material” to his defense. Appellant's Br. at 27.

[17] However, we need not decide whether the trial court erred when it excluded the video because any error in the exclusion of that evidence was harmless. It is well settled “that a claim of error in the admission or exclusion of evidence will not prevail on appeal ‘unless a substantial right of the party is affected.’ ” Troutner v. State, 951 N.E.2d 603, 612 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (quoting Pruitt v. State, 834 N.E.2d 90, 117 (Ind. 2005)), trans. denied. That is, even if the trial court errs in admitting or excluding evidence, this Court will not reverse the defendant's conviction if the error is harmless. See id. An error in the admission or exclusion of evidence “is harmless where the ‘probable impact’ of the erroneously admitted evidence, ‘in light of all the evidence in the case, is sufficiently minor so as not to affect the substantial rights’ of the defendant.” Caesar v. State, 139 N.E.3d 289, 292 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020) (quoting Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A)).

[18] Here, VanArsdale sought to admit S.C.’s CAC interview as a means of directing the jury to various inconsistencies between her statements during that interview and her trial testimony. But S.C. testified in person at trial, and VanArsdale was able to question her about the inconsistencies. Indeed, he questioned her about whether one of the offenses occurred in a bathroom or bedroom, whether his body moved during one of the offenses, and whether one of the offenses involved placing his penis in her vagina or anus. Thus, the inconsistencies VanArsdale sought to admit via the CAC interview were already placed before the jury.²

[19] Further, and notably, while VanArsdale highlights some inconsistencies between S.C.’s CAC interview and her trial testimony, there is no dispute that the substance of both her CAC interview and trial testimony was the same: that VanArsdale knowingly or intentionally performed sexual intercourse with S.C. in 2021 when he placed his penis in either her vagina or anus,³ regardless of whether he moved his body, and that he knowingly or intentionally performed other sexual conduct with S.C. in 2023 when he penetrated her vagina with his hand,⁴ regardless of whether the offense took place in a bedroom or bathroom.

[20] In light of all the evidence before the court, including the fact that VanArsdale thoroughly cross-examined S.C. about the inconsistencies between her CAC interview and her trial testimony, we can say with confidence that the probable impact of the exclusion of the CAC interview was sufficiently minor so as to not affect VanArsdale's substantial rights. On the contrary, we can see no benefit that VanArsdale would have gained by having the jury listen to the interview and hear S.C.’s allegations of abuse for a second time. Indeed, even VanArsdale conceded below that S.C. “makes lots of accusations” in the interview. Tr. Vol. 4 at 79. Accordingly, we conclude that any error in the exclusion of that evidence was harmless.

Conclusion

[21] Any error in the exclusion of S.C.’s CAC interview was harmless. We therefore affirm VanArsdale's convictions.

[22] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   The State asserts that VanArsdale has waived his claim for failing to make an adequate offer of proof. While we agree with the State that VanArsdale's argument was not as explicit or thorough as it could have been, it nonetheless still highlighted specific differences between S.C.’s CAC interview and her trial testimony such that the court was able to make a determination on its admissibility and relevance. We will therefore address VanArsdale's claim.

2.   We note that neither party provided a copy of the CAC interview in their record on appeal.

3.   Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a) (defining child molesting).

4.   I.C. §§ 35-42-4-3(a) and 35-31.5-2-221.5 (defining other sexual conduct).

Bailey, Judge.

Tavitas, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur.