Tara L. Mollett, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] In 2024, A.S. visited Tara Mollett, a childhood acquaintance, at Mollett's home. Once there, Mollett and her boyfriend subjected A.S. to hours of senseless violence. Following a jury trial, Mollett was found guilty of Level 3 felony criminal confinement ¹ and Level 3 felony aggravated battery.² The trial court sentenced her to consecutive terms of sixteen years for each count. Mollett appeals her aggregate thirty-two-year sentence, claiming it is inappropriate in light of the nature of her offenses and her character. We affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] As the State summarized in its mini opening statement before jury selection: “[T]his case is really about the horrors that human beings can inflict upon one another and, yes, I know that sounds dramatic but this is a very dark set of circumstances.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 26.

[3] Mollett and A.S. attended sixth grade together in the mid-2000s. Initially, they did not get along. A.S. recalled Mollett being “the bully on the bus[.]” Tr. Vol. 6 at 84. When Mollett made comments to A.S.’s little sister, A.S. hit her in the face one time, giving her a bloody nose. After that single altercation, A.S. apologized to Mollett and they “ended up becoming friends[.]” Id. at 85. Mollett moved the following summer. Although they no longer attended the same school, Mollett and A.S. stayed friends through social media, and A.S. thought they were “on good terms.” Id. at 86.

[4] In September 2024, twenty-nine-year-old Mollett lived in a duplex in Elkhart, Indiana. She had four kids and was dating Young. A.S. lived in Michigan with her mom, stepdad, and two kids, ages four and two. Her older son has autism. On September 22, after not having spoken for a while, Mollett and A.S. began a conversation through Facebook that eventually became a phone conversation. Over the course of the day, Mollett and A.S. decided to get together. A.S. “felt really good” about reconnecting with Mollett; she thought they were “going to be good for each other and ․ needed each other” because of similar life experiences. Id. at 91. A.S. did not have a car, but Mollett agreed to drive to Michigan and bring A.S. and her children back to Elkhart to spend the night if A.S. provided gas money. A.S. and her kids were then going on to South Bend to visit her brother.

[5] While Mollett was talking with A.S., she was also communicating by text with Young. She told him she was on the phone with a girl she went to school with and asked if Young wanted to go with her to Michigan to pick up her and her kids. Young declined but agreed to go to Mollett's house when they got back into town.

[6] As planned, Mollett picked up A.S. and her kids and drove them back to Elkhart. They made a couple of stops once in town and arrived at Mollett's duplex around 9:00 p.m. A.S. had expected Mollett's children to be there so all the kids could play together, but they were not. Mollett explained later that one of her children was in his father's custody and the other three—including an infant she shared with Young—were in the care of others due to CHINS proceedings.³ A.S. fed her children and then put them to bed in an upstairs bedroom.

[7] Mollett and A.S. began drinking and continued drinking throughout the night. Mollett texted Young and told him they were home. She also said, “[W]e're getting in the shower now[.] I'll send pics.” Ex. Vol. 9 at 175–76. Mollett and A.S. then took several “goofy pictures” together. Id. at 102. They were naked in some of these pictures. Unbeknownst to A.S., Mollett texted the pictures to Young. Mollett also texted Young and said, ““I'm gonna have to be twisted and if I'm feeling it I'll tell you but this is the first b*tch I've had a 3 way with so I'll let you know if I'm down[.]” Ex. Vol. 9 at 184. Young told Mollett to “get a pic of her p*ssy just for my records ․ lmao ․ *ssh*ole and all.” Id. at 193. Young also asked her to make a video but Mollett refused.

[8] A.S. said Mollett was “being funny, giddy, and just seemed like she was trying to ․ enjoy the night really.” Tr. Vol. 6 at 104. Around 10:30 p.m., Young arrived with a friend and Mollett's demeanor changed “pretty immediate[ly.]” Id. Mollett made a comment about A.S.’s kids and started “bringing up the altercation that had happened in sixth grade.” Id. A.S. was “ready to walk away” because Mollett “just kept picking,” but Young asked his friend to take A.S. on a walk while he had a private conversation with Mollett. Id. at 105.

[9] When A.S. and Young's friend returned to the house, Young was leaving and Mollett was trying to get him to stay. Mollett told A.S. “it was all [her] fault that [Young] was leaving” and told her to “go out there and ․ say that this was all [her] fault” to get him to stay. Id. at 108. A.S. apologized to Young and his friend for “how the night was going” and tried to reassure them that there was nothing to worry about. Id. Mollett was also texting Young and pleading with him to return. In one text, she said, “She's good if not she's gonna be laying in that f*cking river[.]” Ex. Vol. 9 at 194. Young and his friend came back into the house, and Mollett “started to act okay for a minute[.]” Tr. Vol. 6 at 109. Mollett gave A.S. a shot of alcohol and put a pill in A.S.’s mouth. A.S. did not know what the pill was but was “just trying to have fun” and “avoid anything that could start an argument” with Mollett. Id. at 109, 110. Then Mollett's demeanor changed again and she started “saying that [A.S.] was a shady person for the things that [she] had done in the past regarding the altercation[.]” Id. at 110. A.S. again left the house and took a walk around the neighborhood by herself.

[10] When A.S. returned, Young's friend was gone, and Mollett was performing oral sex on Young in the living room. Mollett was naked and Young's pants were around his ankles. A.S. decided to leave and began packing her suitcase that was on the living room floor. She planned to call her brother to pick up her and the children. As she packed, Mollett said something indiscernible to Young, and Young replied, “[D]o it[.]” Id. at 116. Mollett asked Young, “Do you have my back?” and Young said, “I've got your back.” Id. And then Mollett said, “[H]old her down.” Id. Young pinned A.S.’s arms back, and Mollett said “[s]omething along the lines of [A.S.] being a shady person” before swinging her arm back and striking A.S. in the cheek area with a closed fist. Id. at 120.

[11] Mollett struck A.S. in the face a couple more times before A.S. began to drift in and out of consciousness. A.S. remembered Mollett striking her mostly in the face, but “kicking, stomping, and just striking a lot” all over her body once she fell to the floor. Id. at 123. A.S. could hear Mollett and Young discussing killing her and her kids and whether to dump their bodies in the woods or in the water. A.S. heard Young tell Mollett to kill her, and Mollett said the “b*tch won't die” while continuing to assault her. Id. at 123–24. Periodically, A.S. would play dead hoping they would leave her alone, but Mollett and Young checked the pulse in her left foot and then Mollett continued beating her. She also tried to escape several times, but Young blocked her way each time. At one point, Young forcibly removed A.S.’s shorts as she lay on her stomach on the floor. A.S. began screaming as loud as she could. Mollett sat on A.S.’s back, pulled her head back by the hair, and punched A.S. repeatedly in the back and side of the head. A.S. could feel her chest tightening and she passed out, unable to breathe.

[12] Young recorded two videos of this altercation with his phone, both before and after he removed A.S.’s shorts. The first video was from 2:31 a.m. and shows A.S. wearing shorts while laying on the floor with Mollett—naked—laying on top of her face and chest. Mollett makes several threatening comments and strangles and punches A.S. as A.S. tries to break free. In the second video, from 2:32 a.m., A.S. is naked from the waist down and face down on the floor as Mollett sits on her back and punches her repeatedly. Young puts his phone down and the image becomes indistinct, but the sounds of crying, screaming, and hitting continue. When a clear image resumes, A.S. is still on the floor and Mollett is standing over her. Although Young tells Mollett to relax, Mollett continues hitting A.S. and yells that she needed “sixty-eight f*cking stitches, you b*tch” because of the sixth-grade altercation. Ex. 1120 (IMG_1748.mov) at 3:56.

[13] When A.S. came to, she saw Mollett and Young whispering in the dining room and then heard a knock. Michael Wise, who lived in the other half of the duplex, was at the door. He and his wife, Tiffany, had heard “a lot of thumping and a little bit of noises that were keeping [them] awake.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 150. Tiffany said the banging noises began around 9:00 p.m. and went on for several hours. Eventually, they heard a lady start screaming, “Help me[!]” Id. at 138. Soon after, Wise went next door to investigate.

[14] Wise first looked in the window and saw Mollett “on top of somebody and ․ Young just standing over them looking at them.” Id. at 153. It looked like Mollett was striking the other person. Young answered the door when Wise knocked. As Young explained the women were fighting, A.S. “came flying to the door screaming for help.” Id. at 154. A.S. told Wise they were trying to kill her and her kids and trying to rape her and she needed help. Wise thought it was “kind of frightening, scary kinda,” and he “could tell [A.S.] was in serious trouble.” Id. at 155. He said she looked “pretty banged up” and her emotional state was “[l]ike life or death, ․ something [he'd] never seen before honestly.” Id. at 156. Then Mollett came running to the door saying, “[C]all the police, call the police, she broke into my house[.]” Id. at 155. Wise left and returned to his home, “physically shaking [and] freaking out.” Id. at 140. Tiffany called 9-1-1 at 2:48 a.m.

[15] While Mollett and Young were distracted because of Wise's interruption, A.S. ran to the bathroom, hoping to find a window or a weapon. But Young got the door open, grabbed her by the arm, and pulled her back into the room. Mollett “got in [A.S.’s] face and wrapped [A.S.’s] hair around her hand and ․ got really close to [A.S.’s] face and she said, ‘Do you know what he said about you? Do you want to know?’ And she said that [Wise had] said that they had really f*cked [A.S.] up and that he was laughing.” Tr. Vol. 6 at 133–34. At that point, A.S. “had no hope.” Id. at 134.

[16] Then police knocked on the door. Mollett got in A.S.’s face one more time, pulled her head back by the hair, told her to “shut [her] f*cking mouth,” and hit her in the chin. Id. at 135. Then Mollett answered the door and immediately said to the officer standing there, “This chick laid her hands on me,” as A.S. ran past her screaming, “Help me! Help me! ․ My kids are inside!” State's Ex. 5 at 1:05. Tiffany saw the police arrive and then saw “a lady [come] running out – shooting out the door screaming that, ‘They were beating me for hours.’ ․ [S]he fell to the ground at a police officer's feet trying to thank them for saving her.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 141.

[17] When Officer Nicholas Ragsdale arrived,

Patrolman Carder was standing on the porch speaking with [Mollett] and [Young]. Patrolman Fitzgerald was standing next to [A.S.], who was laying on the sidewalk.

* * *

[A.S.] was in like a panic state and pleading with us to help her and help her children. [Young] seemed really uninvolved and [Mollett] was just talking about how it was self-defense and she can defend herself.

Tr. Vol. 4 at 3.

[18] A.S. was transported to the hospital.⁴ Both of her eyes were swollen shut and she said the pain was the “worst ․ I've ever felt in my entire life and it was even worse because I couldn't see anything.” Tr. Vol. 6 at 143. A forensic nurse noted bruises and abrasions on multiple parts of A.S.’s body, including her shoulders, arms, chest, legs, and back. She had swelling, bruising, and tenderness to both eyes, her chin and jaw area, her cheeks, and her neck. There was a laceration to her left eyelid that required stitches, an abrasion to her upper lip, and her nose was broken on both sides. And she had redness to the top of her head consistent with hair being pulled out. The day after A.S. was discharged, she returned to the hospital. A.S. reported experiencing more pain and having trouble holding her head up. A nurse noted abrasions on A.S.’s neck, petechia ⁵ on various areas of her body, and a subconjunctival hemorrhage in her eye consistent with strangulation.

[19] Officers saw no open wounds or fresh bruises on Mollett although they documented old bruises on her body. At 7:30 a.m., Mollett texted Young and said, “I kinda scared myself tonight didn't truly think I was capable of the sh*t that happened tonight.” Ex. Vol. 9 at 206. At about noon, Mollett texted Young and said, “I broke my d*mn hand.” Id. at 209. She sent a picture of her bruised right hand and said it was broken in five places. And sometime later, Mollett took a video on Snapchat zooming in and out on a bandaged hand as a voice says, “When you break your hand ․ on a b*tch's face.” State's Ex. 1105 pt. 1.

[20] The State charged both Mollett and Young with multiple counts arising from this incident. Specifically, the State charged Mollett with criminal confinement resulting in serious bodily injury and aggravated battery creating a substantial risk of death. They were tried together by a jury. During trial, the State admitted into evidence the text messages between Mollett and Young on the day of the attack and the next day, as well as the videos from Young's phone depicting some of the assault. A.S. testified she learned about the videos when they were posted on Facebook. The State also introduced photographs documenting blood on the floor, walls, and door frames, and clumps of long, dark hair consistent with A.S.’s hair scattered on the floor of Mollett's duplex. The jury found Mollett guilty as charged of criminal confinement and aggravated battery.⁶

[21] At sentencing, A.S. testified about how these events affected her:

Emotionally and mentally everything that I used to do prior to this incident I did with hope, free will, joy, happiness, and everything that I do in my life now I have to question it several times, I have to create backup plans for my safety, as well as my children's safety, and it's impacted my life in every way, emotionally, mentally, and physically.

Tr. Vol. 7 at 180. She has permanent scars on her face and persistent back pain. She noted because of her children's ages and speech capabilities, they were unable to share what they saw or heard in Mollett's house that night but said they act “completely differently now.” Id. at 182. When they first saw her after the assault with all her injuries, “they were so scared of [her]” they would not come near. Id. They struggle with sleep and have nightmares. A.S. has cut off family and friends because she doesn't trust anyone. And referencing the videos posted to social media, she said, “This wasn't just an incident that happened inside of a duplex with me, [Young], [Mollett]. This was something that went completely public, as well as my name. I was publicly humiliated.” Id. at 183.⁷

[22] Mollett's attorney elicited information from her about her four children—none of whom were in her custody. The presentence investigation report (“PSI”) noted one prior criminal conviction: a misdemeanor operating while intoxicated conviction for an offense committed two months prior to this incident. Mollett offered the following statement: “There was way too much to drink that night and I am so sorry that this happened to [A.S.]” Id. at 197; see Appellant's App. Vol. 2 at 86 (PSI relating Mollett's version of events as “I went and got this girl in Michigan. I went to school with her in middle school, we connected through Facebook. Had a house party. She was fine at first and then she started acting weird. A lot of alcohol was consumed.”). Mollett acknowledged “there are certainly aggravators present in this case[,]” but argued there were also mitigators that balanced the scales. Tr. Vol. 7 at 198. Specifically, she argued significant mitigators were her lack of criminal history, the circumstances were unlikely to recur, and imprisonment would result in undue hardship to her dependents. She asked for the advisory sentence of nine years on each count and requested a community corrections placement.

[23] The trial court began its sentencing remarks with the following observation:

I have seen many things over my more than 20 years of being involved in the criminal justice system and particularly as my role as a judicial officer for nearly 10 years. I have the occasions to preside over cases involving just horrific acts of violence. That being said, this case stands out amongst one of the worst cases that this Court has ever seen and the Court was particularly impacted by this and I certainly don't mean to indicate that I'm callus [sic] to other things but for lack of a better term, you do kind of build some type of tolerance to the depravity that human beings are willing to impose upon other human beings but this is just beyond the pale. The one thing I keep coming back to is just how senseless this was, how this makes no sense that this happened and I just – I can't reconcile in my mind why.

Id. at 215. The trial court also spoke to Mollett's demeanor during trial:

Ms. Mollett, I find your behavior in court today curious and here's why I find it curious, you are clearly tearful today. I don't know if that's genuine or not but I compare your demeanor today with your demeanor at trial․ [T]o say that I found your behavior during trial to be bizarre would be an understatement. Ms. Mollett, you were almost giddy throughout the entire trial. You sat with your legs propped up on the table the entire time, you had just a smug look on your face. When I watched you watching the video[s] that were presented, again, that left me shaken, you almost looked like you were on the edge of your seat watching a [b]lockbuster movie with enjoyment on your face. It was troubling․ [A]s [A.S.] left the witness stand you stared her down ․, turned your chair around and stared her down until she walked out that door.

Id. at 226.

[24] The trial court found Mollett's history of criminal activity to be an aggravator, acknowledging there was just one prior offense but focusing on the proximity in time to the current offense. The court also identified as aggravators that the harm, injury, loss, or damage was significant and greater than the elements necessary to prove the crimes and this crime of violence was knowingly committed in the presence of children under eighteen years of age. The court found no mitigators. It rejected the hardship to Mollett's children as a mitigator because of the “specific facts of this situation,” namely, that her children were not in her care. Id. at 231. And the trial court noted any remorse Mollett had expressed at the sentencing hearing was “completely inconsistent with all of the other information[.]” Id. at 234.

[25] The court concluded Mollett was “a dangerous person and that removing [her] from the community for as long as the Court possibly can is the only assurance this Court has to keep the community safe from your complete[ly] depraved behavior and lack of regard for another human being.” Id. at 234. The trial court ordered Mollett to serve the statutory maximum sixteen years for criminal confinement, consecutive to the statutory maximum sixteen years for aggravated battery, for a total sentence of thirty-two years. In sum, the trial court found that “to give [Mollett] anything less than the maximum sentence would be an affront to justice here.” Id.

Mollett's sentence is not inappropriate.

[26] Mollett asks us to revise her sentence. The Indiana Constitution authorizes this Court to review and revise a trial court's sentencing decision as provided by rule. Ind. Const. art. 7, § 6. Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides we may revise a sentence authorized by statute if, “after due consideration of the trial court's decision, the Court finds that the sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The principal role of appellate review is to leaven the outliers, not to achieve a perceived correct sentence in each case. Conley v. State, 183 N.E.3d 276, 288 (Ind. 2022). Therefore, “we reserve our 7(B) authority for exceptional cases.” Faith v. State, 131 N.E.3d 158, 160 (Ind. 2019) (per curiam).

[27] “[S]entencing is principally a discretionary function in which the trial court's judgment should receive considerable deference.” Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1222 (Ind. 2008). “Such deference should prevail unless overcome by compelling evidence portraying in a positive light the nature of the offense (such as accompanied by restraint, regard, and lack of brutality) and the defendant's character (such as substantial virtuous traits or persistent examples of good character).” Stephenson v. State, 29 N.E.3d 111, 122 (Ind. 2015). The two prongs of 7(B) review are “separate inquiries to ultimately be balanced in determining whether a sentence is inappropriate.” Lane v. State, 232 N.E.3d 119, 126 (Ind. 2024) (quoting Conner v. State, 58 N.E.3d 215, 218 (Ind. Ct. App. 2016)). “[T]o the extent the evidence on one prong militates against relief, a claim based on the other prong must be all the stronger to justify relief.” Id. at 127.

[28] The question “is not whether another sentence is more appropriate; rather, the question is whether the sentence imposed is inappropriate.” Helsley v. State, 43 N.E.3d 225, 228 (Ind. 2015) (quoting King v. State, 894 N.E.2d 265, 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008)) (emphasis omitted). Whether we regard a sentence as inappropriate “turns on our sense of the culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to others, and myriad other factors that come to light in a given case.” Cardwell, 895 N.E.2d at 1224. The defendant bears the burden of persuading us a revised sentence is warranted. Cramer v. State, 240 N.E.3d 693, 698 (Ind. 2024).

[29] The nature of the offense is “found in the details and circumstances of the commission of the offenses and the defendant's participation.” Croy v. State, 953 N.E.2d 660, 664 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011). Mollett characterizes her offense as “a single incident,” mentions the amount of alcohol both she and A.S. consumed, passively refers to the “escalation into violence” as they drank, and minimizes A.S.’s “most serious injuries” as a broken nose and an eyelid laceration that required no “further medical intervention or treatment past September 26, 2024.” Appellant's Br. at 11–12. But the “single incident” lasted four to five hours. Although both Mollett and A.S. consumed alcohol, only Mollett became violent. And A.S. testified to the lasting effects the attack had on her physical and mental wellbeing as well as the changes it manifested in her children, who were upstairs while Mollett inflicted unrelenting violence on A.S. as she screamed in pain and fear. Moreover, as the trial court noted, this was a senseless, brutal crime, apparently born out of animosity Mollett held toward A.S. for a schoolgirl fight from nearly twenty years ago. Mollett threatened to kill A.S. and her children, beat A.S. while she faded in and out of consciousness, stood by as Young removed A.S.’s pants, and tried to divert blame onto A.S. when both Wise and the police came to the door. Mollett did not demonstrate restraint in her actions or regard for A.S. as a fellow human being. See Stephenson, 29 N.E.3d at 122. Indeed, her actions were exceptionally sadistic. Nothing about the nature of Mollett's offenses makes this sentence inappropriate.

[30] Examining Mollett's character involves a broad analysis of her “qualities, life, and conduct.” Cramer, 240 N.E.3d at 699 (quoting Crabtree v. State, 152 N.E.3d 687, 705 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied). Mollett argues her minimal criminal history and low risk to reoffend are important factors to consider in assessing her character. And we do consider those factors, as the trial court did. But we also consider the trial court's assessment of Mollett's behavior from watching her firsthand at trial over five days: the trial court noted Mollett was “giddy” and “smug” and “stared [A.S.] down” as she left the witness stand and left the courtroom. Tr. Vol. 7 at 226. The trial court rejected her claim that nothing like this would happen again, concluding Mollett was a dangerous person. Mollett engaged in this behavior even though A.S.’s two children were in the house, and three of her own four children were subjects of CHINS proceedings at the time, indicating she was thinking only of herself. She lied to police when they arrived and made light of the events in the days afterwards. Mollett has not offered compelling evidence of good character.

[31] As discussed above, the trial court imposed the maximum sentence on Mollett.⁸ Mollett argues the maximum sentence should be reserved for the “very worst offenses and the very worst offenders.” Appellant's Br. at 10. In analyzing such claims, we “concentrate less on comparing the facts of [the case at issue] to others, whether real or hypothetical, and more on focusing on the nature, extent, and depravity of the offense for which the defendant is being sentenced, and what it reveals about the defendant's character.” Paul v. State, 888 N.E.2d 818, 825 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (quotation omitted), trans. denied. The nature, extent, and depravity of Mollett's offenses reveal a poor character, and the maximum sentence is not inappropriate.

Conclusion

[32] Mollett has not met her burden of persuading us her sentence is inappropriate.

[33] Affirmed.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Ind. Code § 35-42-3-3(b)(3)(B) (2019).

2.   I.C. § 35-42-2-1.5 (2014).

3.   At her sentencing hearing in June 2025, Mollett stated that one of her children was in the custody of his father; two children were the subject of active child in need of services (“CHINS”) proceedings and in the care of others; and one child was the subject of a CHINS proceeding that was closed when a relative filed for guardianship. The CHINS cases began after Mollett left the children unattended in a car on September 4, 2024.

4.   A.S.’s brother eventually picked up A.S.’s kids from Mollett's house.

5.   The nurse explained petechia are “little tiny burst[ ] blood vessels” that can be caused by the “pressure build up from ․ lack of blood flow.” Tr. Vol. 4 at 227.

6.   The jury also found Young guilty of Level 3 felony attempted rape, Level 3 felony criminal confinement, and Level 3 felony aggravated battery. Young's appeal of his convictions and sentence is decided by separate opinion also handed down on this date. Young v. State, No. 25A-CR-1769 (Ind. Ct. App., June 22, 2026).

7.   In one of the videos, recorded after Young removed her shorts, A.S. is naked from the waist down.

8.   The sentencing range for a Level 3 felony is from three to sixteen years, with an advisory sentence of nine years. I.C. § 35-50-2-5(b) (2014).

Kenworthy, Judge.

Bradford, J., and Pyle, J., concur.