Adam K. Baumholser, Appellant-Defendant,
State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff.
from the Vanderburgh Circuit Court The Honorable Kelli E.
Fink, Magistrate Trial Court Cause No. 82C01-1305-FA-539
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT Matthew J. McGovern Anderson, Indiana
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Gregory F. Zoeller Attorney General of
Indiana Michael Gene Worden Deputy Attorney General
Adam K. Baumholser appeals his convictions of three counts of
child molesting,  one as a Class A
felony and two as Class C felonies. As the admission of
certain character evidence and forensic interviewer testimony
was not fundamental error, and as Baumholser's sentence
was neither inappropriate nor an abuse of discretion, we
and Procedural History
Baumholser and A.L. married in January 2006. A.L.'s
daughter from a previous relationship, K.C., was four years
old at the time of the marriage. In August 2007, Baumholser
and A.L. had a son. Baumholser and A.L. divorced in 2009 when
K.C. was eight years old.
In February 2013, K.C. disclosed to her mother and
grandmother that Baumholser molested her on five separate
occasions in 2007 when she was six years old. Following her
disclosure, K.C. took part in a forensic interview. The State
charged Baumholser with four counts of child molestation, two
as Class A felonies and two as Class C felonies, for crimes
committed on separate occasions.
At trial, K.C. testified she did not immediately report the
molestations as she feared Baumholser, because "[h]e was
a lot bigger than me and my mom and he drank a lot and he had
weapons in the house." (Tr. at 63.) Baumholser did not
object to her testimony. The forensic interviewer, Molly
Elfreich, testified "most of the time [disclosure of a
crime by a child] is delayed in some way." (Id.
at 121.) Baumholser also did not object to this testimony.
The jury found Baumholser guilty of one Class A felony and
two Class C felonies. The jury was unable to reach a verdict
on one of the Class A felony charges, and the State dismissed
At sentencing, the trial court noted as a mitigator that
Baumholser had no prior felony convictions. The trial court
found as aggravators that Baumholser had been in a position
of trust and care and he "is being sentenced for three
separate counts[.]" (Id. at 279.) The trial
court sentenced him to thirty-two years executed on the Class
A felony and four years each on the Class C felonies, all to
be served concurrently.
Baumholser argues the erroneous admission of character
evidence and prior misconduct evidence, together with
vouching testimony, denied him a fair trial. We typically
review rulings on the admission of evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Pavlovich v. State, 6 N.E.3d 969, 975
(Ind.Ct.App. 2014), trans. denied. An abuse of
discretion occurred if the trial court misinterpreted the law
or if its decision was clearly against the logic and effect
of the facts and circumstances before it. Id.
Baumholser did not object at trial to the evidence about
which he now complains on appeal. Failure to object at trial
waives the issue on review unless fundamental error occurred.
Halliburton v. State, 1 N.E.3d 670, 678 (Ind. 2013).
Fundamental error is an extremely narrow exception that
applies only when the error amounts to a blatant violation of
basic principles, the harm or potential for harm is
substantial, and the resulting error denies the defendant
fundamental due process. Matthews v. State, 849
N.E.2d 578, 587 (Ind. 2006). The claimed error must be so
prejudicial to the rights of a defendant as to make a fair
trial impossible. Taylor v. State, 717 N.E.2d 90, 93
(Ind. 1999). Ind. Evidence Rules 404(a) and 404(b)
Baumholser asserts fundamental error occurred when the State
introduced evidence that Baumholser "drank a lot and 
had weapons in the house, " (Tr. at 63), thus painting
him as a "drunken, armed menace who intimidated K.C.
into suppressing her secret." (Appellant's Br. at
24.) Baumholser claims this was inadmissible character