By Liz Shepherd
WARSAW — The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed Kosciusko Superior Court One’s decision in giving Daniel Louvier a 24-year prison sentence for child molesting.
On Dec. 9, 2019, a Child Protective Services caseworker contacted the Kosciusko County Sheriff’s Office. The caseworker said she had received complaints of molestation committed by Louvier that involved fondling two children.
A forensic interview was conducted by a DCS family case manager with one of the children on Dec. 9, 2019. During the interview, the child said Louvier touched them inappropriately multiple times over the past year. The child said the touching would happen when they were watching movies or television together. The child also said Louvier would pull them closer to him or pull them onto his lap and touch them inappropriately.
On Dec. 11, 2019, a forensic interview was conducted with the second child. The child said Louvier touched them inappropriately multiple times during the previous school year. The child said they would be sitting on the couch watching television when Louvier would pull them closer and inappropriately touch them.
During a one-day jury trial in October 2020, Louvier, 38, was found guilty on two charges of child molesting, both level 4 felonies. He is currently serving his sentence in the Indiana State Prison, with a projected release date of May 14, 2039.
A 10-page memorandum decision filed by the Court of Appeals on May 20 says that the trial court did not abuse its discretion through giving Louvier the maximum sentence. The brief reflects on Louvier’s connections to the children, as well as the number of times the molestations occurred, as valid aggravators.
“Our supreme court has explained that, while ‘the maximum possible sentences are generally most appropriate for the worst offenders,’ this is not ‘a guideline to determine whether a worse offender could be imagined’ as ‘it will always be possible to identify or hypothesize a significantly more despicable scenario,'” read the memorandum.
The Court of Appeals also stated that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to consider certain mitigating circumstances.
“In Louvier’s case, the trial court heard the testimony and considered the evidence presented at sentencing and found no mitigating circumstances of any importance; and, the trial court was under no obligation to explain why,” read the memorandum. “The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it did not consider as mitigating circumstances Louvier’s contentions that he was employed; he used his resources to help support his family; and he had not committed a crime in nearly 10 years.”