Ronald Love, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] Following a jury trial, Ronald Love appeals his three convictions of child molesting, as Level 4 felonies, and two convictions of battery, one as a Level 5 felony and one as a Level 6 felony. Love raises one issue, which we restate as the following dispositive issue: whether any error in the admission of the forensic interviewer's testimony was harmless. Finding that it was, we affirm.

Facts and Procedural History

[2] On February 17, 2024, nine-year-old B.L. and her eleven-year-old sister F.L. were spending a weekend with their father, Love, at his apartment in Indianapolis. The children's mother, Pandel Ludwig, had dropped the girls off and given them a tablet they could use to communicate with her. Before dropping them off, Pandel and the children had also determined that “hot, hot potato” could be used as a “safe word” if something was wrong. Tr. Vol. 2 at 126-27.

[3] While Love and the children were at the apartment, Love began drinking. F.L. saw Love lock B.L. in his bedroom with the two inside. Love touched B.L. on “the parts where ․ you shouldn't touch.” Id. at 196-97. From outside of the room, F.L. heard B.L. screaming “stop” and “I don't like this[,]” along with “smacking sounds.” Id. at 154.

[4] Love and B.L. came out of the bedroom, and F.L. saw that B.L. was crying and had red marks all over her legs and face. In the living room, Love sat down on F.L. with his legs over her legs. Love started putting his hands underneath F.L.’s shirt, and F.L. believed he was drunk. Love “first touched [F.L.]’s boobs and then went down to [her] vagina.” Id. at 156. Love put his hands under F.L.’s bra and made her “very uncomfortable.” Id. He then touched her vagina under her pants and tried to touch her under her underwear, but F.L. was able to stop him. F.L. told Love to stop, and Love slapped her nose and called her a “bitch.” Id. at 158.

[5] F.L. then locked herself in the bathroom and used her tablet to text her mom “hot, hot potato.” Id. at 159; State's Ex. 1. Pandel immediately tried calling Love and each of the girls, but none of them answered. Pandel decided to drive to Love's apartment with her husband, Jonathan Boling. Eventually, F.L. texted her mother back stating that she could not call because “dad won't let me but come pick us up plz.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 129-30; State's Ex. 1. Their conversation over text continued with F.L. stating, “Dad is yelling at sissy and I'm scared ․ dad hit her ․ Dad almost caught me but I'm good.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 129-31; State's Exs. 1-5.

[6] When Pandel arrived at the apartment door, she noticed that Love's eyes were “glassed over” and he was not “fully coherent.” Tr. Vol. 2 at 135. The children were crying and frantically running out the door even though Love tried to stop them. The next morning, Pandel called the Department of Child Services, and the children each completed a forensic interview with child forensic interviewer Erin Curtiss.

[7] Love was charged with three counts of Level 4 felony child molesting, one count of Level 5 felony battery, and one count of Level 6 felony battery. At trial, F.L. and B.L. testified and were subject to cross-examination. B.L. testified that it was difficult to remember the events of that day because it “made [her] feel uncomfortable” but that she told the forensic interviewer the truth in the interview after it happened. Id. at 191-92. As a recorded recollection, the transcript of her interview was read aloud in the presence of the jury. During the interview, B.L. told Curtiss that Love touched her chest under her shirt and that Love told her not to tell her mom “because he ․ said ․ he'll get in trouble.” Id. at 220-21.

[8] Later in the trial, Curtiss testified about her experience conducting the forensic interviews of F.L. and B.L. When the prosecutor asked Curtiss about the children's demeanors during the interviews, Love objected pursuant to a previously filed motion in limine. Love argued that testimony regarding the children's demeanors when making out-of-court statements should be excluded under Indiana Rule of Evidence 401. The trial court acknowledged the objection and told the prosecutor not to “go too far.” Tr. Vol. 3 at 8-9. Curtiss's testimony regarding the demeanor of the children was as follows:

Q: Based on what you witnessed, what was F.L.’s demeanor during the interview?

A: She appeared comfortable. She was talkative, and she was articulate and open and descriptive in her disclosure.

Q: Okay. Thank you. And based on your training and experience, did F.L.’s demeanor fit within a range of demeanors appropriate for this kind of disclosure?

A: Yes.

․

Q: Okay. Thank you. And what was B.L.’s demeanor during her interview?

A: She appeared nervous. She was very soft-spoken, but she was able and willing to provide detail.

Q: Okay. Thank you. And was B.L.’s interview shorter than F.L.’s?

A: I believe so.

Q: Okay. Thank you. And you had stated F.L. was a little bit more articulate. Is that correct?

A: Yes.

Q: Okay. And based on your training and experience, did the demeanor that you observed B.L. have during your forensic interview with her, was it appropriate for the type of disclosure she was making?

A: Yes.

․

Q: Okay. Thank you. And is there any one specific demeanor that children who are victims of child molest[ing] have based on [y]our training and experience?

A: No. There's not.

Q: What is the range of demeanors you've observed from children who are victims of child molest[ing]?

A: All sorts of demeanors. Some kids come in with a completely flat affect, some are very tearful, some are very talkative. It's -they're all considered very normal in my training and experience, but there's a full range of demeanors.

Id. at 9-11.

[9] The jury found Love guilty on all five counts. Love was sentenced to an aggregate fifteen years in the Department of Correction with four years executed, five years suspended to sex offender probation, and six years fully suspended. This appeal ensued.

Discussion and Decision

[10] Love argues that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting Curtiss's testimony regarding the children's demeanor at trial. As this court stated:

We review challenges to the admission of evidence for an abuse of the trial court's discretion. Combs v. State, 168 N.E.3d 985, 990 (Ind. 2021). We will reverse only where the decision is clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances and the error affects a party's substantial rights. Clark v. State, 994 N.E.2d 252, 259-60 (Ind. 2013). “The effect of an error on a party's substantial rights turns on the probable impact of the impermissible evidence upon the jury in light of all the other evidence at trial.” Gonzalez v. State, 929 N.E.2d 699, 702 (Ind. 2010); see Ind. Trial Rule 61; Ind. Appellate Rule 66(A). The erroneous admission of evidence is harmless when we are persuaded that the jury's verdict was not “substantially swayed” by the erroneously-admitted evidence. Lafayette v. State, 917 N.E.2d 660, 666 (Ind. 2009).

Salinas v. State, 257 N.E.3d 17, 26-27 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025), trans. denied; see also Hoglund v. State, 962 N.E.2d 1230, 1238 (Ind. 2012) (“The improper admission is harmless error if the conviction is supported by substantial independent evidence of guilt satisfying the reviewing court there is no substantial likelihood the challenged evidence contributed to the conviction.”).

[11] Love contends that the court abused its discretion by allowing the State to present vouching testimony. Specifically, Love argues that Curtiss's statements regarding the demeanor of the children during their forensic interviews constituted impermissible vouching testimony.

[12] However, we need not decide whether the court erred when it admitted Curtiss's testimony because any such error was harmless. Before Curtiss testified, the jury heard the testimony of both children, their subsequent cross-examination, and the transcript of B.L.’s forensic interview. Additionally, the jury heard the testimony of Pandel and Jonathan. Thus, there was substantial independent evidence of Love's guilt, see Hoglund, 962 N.E.2d at 1238, and it is unlikely the jury was “substantially swayed” by Curtiss's statements. Lafayette, 917 N.E.2d at 666. Based on the other substantial evidence of Love's guilt and the jury's likely minimal reliance on Curtiss's statements on demeanor, we can say with confidence that the probable impact of any erroneously admitted evidence was harmless.

Conclusion

[13] Even if the admission of Curtiss's testimony regarding the children's demeanors was erroneous, any such error was harmless. Therefore, we affirm.

[14] Affirmed.

Bailey, Judge.

Brown, J., and Weissmann, J., concur