FILED
Mar 19 2018, 5:50 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Leanna Weissmann Curtis T. Hill, Jr.,
Lawrenceburg, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
J.T. Whitehead
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jennifer Schooler, March 19, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
69A01-1706-CR-1254
v. Appeal from the Ripley Circuit
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Ryan King, Judge
Appellee-Plaintiff Trial Court Cause No.
69C01-1607-MR-001
Vaidik, Chief Judge.
[1] Jennifer Schooler was convicted of murder and Level 6 felony neglect of a
dependent for killing her boyfriend’s three-year-old son and failing to seek
medical treatment for him, and the trial court sentenced her to maximum and
consecutive sentences. Schooler now appeals, arguing that the evidence is
insufficient to prove that she is the one who caused the three-year-old’s fatal
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 1 of 22
brain injuries and that her sentence is inappropriate. Concluding that the
evidence is sufficient to show that Schooler is the one who inflicted the three-
year-old’s fatal brain injuries and that her sentence is not inappropriate, we
affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
[2] The evidence most favorable to the verdicts is that in August 2015, Schooler
and Thomas Chadwell were dating and lived together in an apartment in
Batesville along with Chadwell’s children, three-year-old Bradyn and ten-year-
old Cheyenne. The children’s mother, Amanda Chadwell, was incarcerated on
theft and burglary charges in Carroll County, Kentucky, where she had been
since May 14, 2015. Chadwell worked five to seven days a week at a factory in
Greensburg, and Schooler watched the children, particularly Bradyn, who was
not yet in school, while Chadwell worked. According to Schooler, she took
care of Bradyn and Cheyenne “twenty-four-seven.” Tr. Vol. III p. 46.
[3] Wednesday, August 12 was a school day for Cheyenne. When she woke up
that day, Bradyn was already playing with his blocks. As Cheyenne walked
outside to wait for the bus, she told Bradyn, “Bye, I love you bubby.” Tr. Vol.
IV p. 61. Bradyn responded, “Bye, Shine,” which was what he called
Cheyenne because he could not say her name. Id. According to Cheyenne,
there was nothing “out of the ordinary” or “weird” with Bradyn when she left.
Id. She then got on the bus and went to school “like every other day.” Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 2 of 22
[4] Schooler, Chadwell, and Bradyn were all home together until 1:00 p.m., when
Chadwell left for work. Beginning at 1:19 p.m., Schooler called Chadwell
several times; the phone calls between them totaled about nine minutes. Tr.
Vol. III p. 153. Schooler called 911 at 1:34 p.m.
[5] According to the 911 call, Schooler reported that there was a three-year-old
“not breathing” on “the bedroom floor.” Exs. 6 (transcript of 911 call) & 11
(recording of 911 call); Tr. Vol. III pp. 237-38. Schooler initially told the 911
dispatcher that she “just got [Bradyn] out of bed.” Exs. 6 & 11; Tr. Vol. III p.
238. Schooler then said that Bradyn “hit his head on the, on the side of the dr-
dresser, er, the fish tank thing” and went unresponsive. Exs. 6 & 11; Tr. Vol.
III p. 239. The 911 dispatcher told Schooler to perform CPR and provided step-
by-step instructions. In the meantime, at 1:35 p.m., Ripley County EMS
received a call about “a three year old child not breathing.” Tr. Vol. II p. 228.
Paramedic April Jarrett and her partner (who was an EMT) arrived at the
apartment at 1:38 p.m. Because of the nature of the call, a second paramedic in
a chase truck also responded. Schooler was still on the phone with the 911
dispatcher counting chest compressions out loud when EMS arrived, and she
can be overhead telling EMS that Bradyn was talking “[a] few minutes ago”
and then “he just fell over.” Exs. 6 & 11; Tr. Vol. III p. 241. When EMS asked
Schooler about Bradyn’s history, she responded that “his mother is in jail for
child abuse” and mentioned that his mother had a “metal paddle in the car.”
Exs. 6 & 11; Tr. Vol. III pp. 241-42. Schooler then elaborated that Bradyn’s
mother had custody of him “since birth” and that they just got Bradyn from her
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 3 of 22
“[y]esterday.” Exs. 6 & 11; Tr. Vol. III p. 242. She said that Bradyn was
“dehydrated” when they got him. Id. EMS asked Schooler if Bradyn had the
bruises on his face “whenever he c[a]me back from mom,” and Schooler
responded yes. Id. Finally, EMS asked Schooler if Bradyn fell “today,” and
Schooler responded, “No, when [Bradyn’s mother] had him.” Id.
[6] According to Jarrett, when she first walked into the apartment, she saw
“[Bradyn] laying on the floor” in the living-room area (not the bedroom, like
Schooler reported in the 911 call) about ten steps from the front door and
Schooler “kneeling next to him.” Tr. Vol. II p. 230. Schooler was not
performing CPR, although she was counting chest compressions out loud on
the phone to the 911 dispatcher at that time. Tr. Vol. III pp. 6-7; see also Exs. 6
& 11 (Schooler counting out loud to the 911 operator as EMS entered the
apartment and continuing to count after EMS entered). Jarrett immediately felt
for a pulse on Bradyn. Finding none, the first responders started chest
compressions to start his heart and used an “ambu bag” to get air into his lungs.
Tr. Vol. II p. 232. Jarrett noted that Bradyn was “[b]lue-ish-gray” and had
bruising on his face. Id. Jarrett asked Schooler what happened to Bradyn, and
Schooler said that Bradyn had been “acting fine and was running around and
playing.” Id. However, he “hit his head on [the] fish tank about 15 minutes
before [be]coming unresponsive.” Id. at 233. Jarrett asked Schooler where
Bradyn got the bruises, and Schooler responded that Bradyn had the bruises
when they got him from his mother the Friday before (five days earlier). Id. at
239; Tr. Vol. III pp. 2-3.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 4 of 22
[7] After extensive medical interventions by EMS, including delivering two doses
of epinephrine directly into Bradyn’s bone marrow, Bradyn finally had a pulse,
although he still was not breathing on his own. EMS transported Bradyn to
Margaret Mary Hospital in Batesville, arriving at 1:54 p.m. After a short stay at
this hospital, EMS transferred Bradyn to the high school, where a helicopter
picked him up at 2:17 p.m. to take him to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital.
During her treatment of Bradyn, when he was wearing only a diaper, Jarrett
observed the following injuries to him: bruising on both cheeks resembling the
shapes of fingers, a scratch above his left eye, a large bruise to his right eye,
large bruises (yellow in color) to his left upper arm, bruising to the top inner
thighs that were in varying stages of healing, a bruise the size of a silver dollar
below his left shoulder blade, a bruise to his right lower flank area, and bruising
to his upper center chest. Tr. Vol. III p. 2.
[8] Because of the seriousness of the 911 call, all available Batesville Police
Department officers responded to the apartment, including Chief of Police
Stanley Holt and Detective Blake Roope. Detective Roope then went to
Margaret Mary Hospital, where he spoke with Schooler “within [an] hour of
the 911 call” “while the details of that day [were] fresh in her mind.” Id. at 25.
[9] During the interview, Schooler told Detective Roope that she was Bradyn’s
“primary caretaker.” Id. at 29. She said that Bradyn woke up around 10 a.m.,
at which point she made him breakfast, an egg sandwich. She said there was
“nothing out of the ordinary” with Bradyn that morning. Id. at 31. Schooler
said that Chadwell left for work at 1:00 p.m. and that about forty minutes after
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 5 of 22
Chadwell left, Bradyn was chasing the cat when he tripped, fell, and hit the
corner of his left eye on “the bottom left corner” of the fish-tank stand. Id. at
43. Schooler said that Bradyn got a small scratch on the corner of his left eye,
which bled “a little.” Id. at 36. She asked Bradyn if he was okay, and he
nodded yes. However, about thirty minutes after the fall, Schooler said that
Bradyn was sitting on the floor in the living-room area playing with the cat
when he “slumped to his left side” with his eyes open. Id. at 38. She then laid
him flat on his back. According to Schooler, she then called Chadwell to tell
him that Bradyn had fallen and hit the fish-tank stand and that “something was
wrong with [him].” Id. at 39. Schooler said that she spoke with Chadwell for
“six seconds” and that he told her to call 911, which she immediately did. Id. at
40.
[10] Schooler also told Detective Roope about another injury to Bradyn. That is, a
“couple of weeks” ago, Cheyenne accidentally knocked Bradyn over, causing
him to hit the back of his head against a “floor heater” in the bedroom. Id. at
44. Schooler checked Bradyn’s head but found “nothing.” Id. According to
Schooler, these were the only two accidents that could have injured Bradyn.
[11] Detective Roope then asked Schooler if she had ever spanked Bradyn, and she
claimed that she had “never” spanked Bradyn—or any child for that matter—
and specifically noted that Bradyn “was not a discipline issue.” Id. at 47. She
also said that she had never seen Chadwell spank Bradyn either. When
Detective Roope inquired about the bruises on Bradyn’s body, Schooler
responded that Bradyn had been injured (including a bite to his finger and a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 6 of 22
playground incident that resulted in a bruise to the left side of his forehead)
while he was in the care of his mother, Amanda, and that Bradyn had these
injuries when she and Chadwell got Bradyn from Amanda “two months” ago.
Id. at 49. Detective Roope asked Schooler if she reported the injuries to the
Department of Child Services, and Schooler said yes. However, Schooler could
not remember the caseworker’s name. Upon further questioning about the
alleged DCS report, Schooler’s timeline suddenly “shifted,” and she claimed
that they got Bradyn from Amanda two weeks ago (not two months). Id. at 50.
Detective Roope later contacted DCS and confirmed that no report had been
made. In any event, Detective Roope asked Schooler what she thought was
wrong with Bradyn, and she opined that he was dehydrated and malnourished
“from when [Amanda] had him.” Id. at 55.
[12] After interviewing Schooler at Margaret Mary Hospital, Detective Roope
returned to the apartment to investigate the scene. He found a large, broken
wooden spoon on the floor inches away from Bradyn’s toy box. In light of this
discovery, Detective Roope went to Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, where
Bradyn had since been airlifted, to speak with Schooler again. Around 6:00
p.m., he interviewed Schooler for a second time that day. Detective Roope
asked Schooler about the broken wooden spoon on the floor, and she said that
two days ago she threw the spoon at the cat, who was trying to eat Bradyn’s
food as he sat by the toy box, and that the spoon broke. When Detective Roope
revisited the topic of Bradyn’s injuries, Schooler mentioned injuries that she had
not talked about before, specifically “bruising around his buttocks region” and
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 7 of 22
“a bruise on [his] thigh.” Id. at 63. Schooler again claimed that these injuries
occurred to Bradyn while he was in Amanda’s care; however, this time she
claimed that they got him from her “two months” ago. Id. at 64. Schooler
reiterated her earlier statement that neither she nor Chadwell had ever struck
Bradyn.
[13] At Cincinnati Children’s Hospital, Dr. Robert Shapiro, who specializes in
child-abuse cases and is the director of the hospital’s Mayerson Center for Safe
and Healthy Children, saw Bradyn in the intensive-care unit. Bradyn was
“comatose” and on “life support.” Tr. Vol. V p. 22. Dr. Shapiro noted the
same bruises to Bradyn that EMS had seen, and x-rays showed that Bradyn had
several broken bones—including a broken rib, a broken finger, and two broken
hands—in various stages of healing. Bradyn was also malnourished. However,
Bradyn’s most critical injury was bleeding in his brain. A CT scan revealed that
Bradyn had “significant bleeding in the subdural and subarachnoid spaces” of
his brain, which caused “his brain to shift and to herniate” into the base of his
skull (and which likely caused Bradyn to stop breathing). Id. at 61-62. Bradyn
also had “extensive” retinal hemorrhaging, or bleeding in the eyes. Id. at 64.
[14] On Friday, August 14, officers with the Batesville Police Department went to
Cincinnati Children’s Hospital to document Bradyn’s injuries. With Bradyn’s
diaper removed, they spotted a pattern of bruising consisting of small, polka-
dotted circles on his bottom. The officers connected this unique pattern to a
metal strainer spoon (which had small holes in the scoop) that had been
collected from the apartment.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 8 of 22
[15] Also on August 14, testing showed that Bradyn had experienced a “brain
death.” Ex. Vol. IX (“Page 800” of medical records). He was removed from
life support and passed away.
[16] Dr. Karen Looman, the chief deputy coroner at the Hamilton County (Ohio)
Coroner’s Office, conducted an autopsy the following day. She observed “a
large volume of bruising” in different colors all over his body, which suggested
that the bruises were of different ages. Tr. Vol. IV p. 95. According to Dr.
Looman, a bruise typically disappears after seven to ten days, and there is no
bruising after two months. Dr. Looman also took x-rays of Bradyn’s body and
confirmed that he had fractures, including a healing fracture to his rib (which
was about one month old) and a broken finger. As for the injuries to Bradyn’s
brain, Dr. Looman said that he had “a lot of trauma to his head,” including
subgaleal hemorrhages (bruising under his scalp), subdural hemorrhages,
subarachnoid hemorrhages, and retinal hemorrhages. Id. at 124; Ex. Vol. IX
(coroner’s final autopsy report dated November 9, 2015). Bradyn’s brain was
also “badly swollen.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 109. Dr. Looman concluded that the
cause of Bradyn’s death was complications of non-accidental trauma to the
head. Ex. Vol. IX (coroner’s final autopsy report dated November 9, 2015).
[17] After receiving the preliminary autopsy results, Chief Holt interviewed Schooler
and Chadwell on August 17. During the first interview, Schooler essentially
repeated everything that she had told Detective Roope. She also said that
Bradyn was basically non-verbal and communicated by nodding his head and
that she had been his primary caretaker since May 2015. Tr. Vol. III p. 218.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 9 of 22
Chief Holt then changed his strategy, telling Schooler that their investigation up
to that point showed that she was responsible for Bradyn’s injuries. But when
Schooler still did not say anything different than before, Chief Holt left the
room to interview Chadwell. After interviewing Chadwell, Chief Holt returned
to Schooler. At this point, Schooler’s story slowly started to change. At first,
she admitted spanking Bradyn with her hand—despite her previous claims that
she had never spanked any child. Then, she “admitted that she was spanking
him with a spoon” “on the butt.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 230-31. She said that Bradyn
reacted to the spankings by putting his hands “on his butt” to protect himself.
Id. at 231. Schooler said that when she noticed that the spankings were
“starting to leave bruising and that it was hurting his hand,” she quit. Id.; see
also Tr. Vol. IV p. 48. Chief Holt asked Schooler if it was possible that Bradyn
had experienced an additional injury to this head (besides falling into the fish-
tank stand and floor heater), and Schooler—for the first time—said that about
two days before August 12, she lightly pushed Bradyn away from her after
spanking him, at which point he “went down and smacked his head into the
side of the coffee table.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 232, 234. Although Schooler indicated
that she had lightly pushed Bradyn away from her, she also said that Bradyn hit
his head “pretty hard” and was “hurt pretty bad.” Id. at 232. Chief Holt noted
that Schooler was “slowly admitting more and more what she did,” although
she was still “trying to somewhat minimize things” so that she did not look
“too bad.” Id. at 233. When Chief Holt asked Schooler why she spanked
Bradyn that time, she answered because Bradyn had called Cheyenne “a
whore.” Id. at 235. This didn’t make “a lot of sense” to Chief Holt because
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 10 of 22
Schooler had just told him that Bradyn was non-verbal. Id. Schooler was
arrested following this interview.
[18] The State ultimately charged Schooler with murder, Level 1 felony neglect of a
dependent resulting in death, and Level 1 felony aggravated battery. A jury
trial was held in January 2017. The State presented the testimony of numerous
witnesses, including Cheyenne, Dr. Shapiro, Dr. Looman, and Detective
Roope. Cheyenne testified that she had witnessed Schooler “whoop[]” Bradyn
when “he had accidents in his diaper” and that Schooler would use “a metal
spoon and a wooden spoon.” Tr. Vol. IV p. 63. Cheyenne then identified the
metal strainer spoon recovered from the apartment as the one that Schooler
used on Bradyn. Cheyenne explained that Schooler would hit Bradyn “[o]n his
butt” and that if his hands were in the way, “they would get whooped too.” Id.
According to Cheyenne, Chadwell never hit Bradyn with anything. Id. at 64.
[19] Dr. Shapiro testified that Bradyn’s injuries were not caused by falling into a
fish-tank stand, a heater, or a table—all possibilities that Schooler had claimed.
Rather, Bradyn’s injuries were caused by “multiple severe impacts to his head”
in that “his head was struck against an object multiple times.” Tr. Vol. V p. 70;
see also id. at 72 (Dr. Shapiro clarifying that he didn’t think “something was used
to strike [Bradyn’s] head; rather, it was “more likely that his head was struck
against a[n] object”). Dr. Shapiro also thought that it was “likely that he was
also shaken” given the bruises to his upper arms and his small size. Id. at 70; see
also id. at 94-95 (Dr. Shapiro confirming that shaking was “a real possibility”).
Finally, Dr. Shapiro said that Bradyn would have started exhibiting symptoms
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 11 of 22
“within minutes” to two hours of his head injury. Id. at 85; see also id. at 95 (Dr.
Shapiro affirming that symptoms could “show up in minutes” of the injury).
[20] Dr. Looman testified that Bradyn’s brain injury occurred on August 12 and that
it was caused by “violent trauma.” Tr. Vol. IV pp. 110, 130. Like Dr. Shapiro,
Dr. Looman testified that Bradyn’s injuries were not caused by falling into a
fish-tank stand, a heater, or a table, either individually or collectively. Id. at
126. Rather, Dr. Looman believed that the injuries to Bradyn’s brain occurred
from “a violent shake, a violent twist,” or “some sort of violent impact” “right
around the time when [he] collapsed” on August 12. Id. at 135; see also id. at
126 (“I’m telling you what happened around the time he went unresponsive at
home is what caused this serious injury to his head.”). Dr. Looman said that
blood could have started accumulating in Bradyn’s brain as quickly as five to
fifteen minutes “following an impact.” Id. at 133, 135.
[21] Finally, Detective Roope testified that although both Schooler and Chadwell
were suspects at the beginning, after “a long investigation” his attention turned
to Schooler only. Tr. Vol. III p. 78. He based this on the inconsistencies in
Schooler’s 911 call, the fact that Schooler was with Bradyn “twenty-four
seven,” and the fact that the medical evidence did not support Schooler’s
version of what happened to Bradyn. Id.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 12 of 22
[22] Schooler’s defense theory was that Chadwell caused the fatal brain injury to
Bradyn.1 During closing argument, defense counsel highlighted the following
evidence to support that theory: (1) Chadwell was at the apartment only twenty
minutes before Bradyn collapsed; (2) Chadwell told inconsistent stories about
whether Bradyn was awake or asleep when he left for work on August 12; (3)
after Schooler called Chadwell to tell him that something was wrong with
Bradyn, Chadwell stopped on his way home to get gas and also bought a drink
for himself; and (4) Chadwell had recently taken out life insurance on Bradyn
and tried to collect on it. The State responded to defense counsel’s theory as
follows:
[Schooler] never ever pointed a finger at Thomas Chadwell. Not
once. Not within minutes on 911, not within minutes to the
paramedics, not within hours to [Detective Roope], not within
five (5) days to Chief Holt, not once did she say, “He did it. He’s
the one. He’s the one that shook him. He’s the one that
slammed his head down.” Not one time. And now we’re over
five hundred (500) days later.
Tr. Vol. V p. 175. The jury found Schooler guilty as charged, and the court
entered judgments of conviction on all counts.
[23] At sentencing, the trial court vacated the Level 1 felony aggravated-battery
conviction and reduced the neglect-of-a-dependent conviction from a Level 1
1
The State charged Chadwell with Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent, which was pending at the time of
Schooler’s trial. Chadwell later pled guilty and was sentenced to 750 days.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 13 of 22
felony to a Level 6 felony due to double-jeopardy concerns. Appellant’s App.
Vol. VI p. 57. In a seven-page sentencing order, the trial court identified eight
aggravators: (1) Bradyn was only three years old, still in diapers, and essentially
non-verbal; (2) Bradyn’s death caused significant psychological and emotional
trauma to Cheyenne; (3) Schooler was Bradyn’s primary caretaker, and he was
dependent on her; (4) the nature of the crimes in that the cause of Bradyn’s
death involved “a repetition of traumatic events”; (5) the harm suffered went far
beyond that required to prove murder in that Bradyn had numerous fractures
and bruising all over his body; (6) Schooler “attempted to avoid accountability
by blaming a demonstrably innocent mother for the death of that mother’s own
three year old child”; (7) Schooler’s character indicates that she is likely to re-
offend because she previously “had her parental rights to [her own] five (5)
children terminated”; and (8) Schooler has a criminal history consisting of one
misdemeanor conviction and a pending probation violation (although Schooler
argued that her criminal history was a mitigator, the court found that it was
“slightly more aggravating than mitigating” but did not carry much weight). Id.
at 59-61.
[24] As for mitigators, Schooler claimed that the trial court should consider her
difficult upbringing. The court found that to the extent her upbringing was a
mitigator, it “lack[ed] any meaningful weight” given that her hardship “has
absolutely nothing to do with her jury conviction for murdering a three year old
when she was thirty-three (33) years of age.” Id. at 61. Schooler also argued
that the fact that Chadwell was charged in connection with this case should be a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 14 of 22
mitigator. The court, however, found that Chadwell’s pending charge was “not
relevant” to Schooler’s sentencing. Id. As for the fact that Schooler expressed
remorse in her PSI, the court found her “newly found remorse” to be “a matter
of convenience” and therefore not mitigating. Id. at 60. Concluding that the
aggravators “significantly” outweighed the mitigators, the court sentenced
Schooler to “the maximum sentence” for each offense—sixty-five years for
murder and two-and-a-half years for neglect of a dependent—and ordered the
sentences to be served consecutively, for an aggregate term of sixty-seven-and-a-
half years. Id. at 62. Acknowledging that this was the maximum sentence
possible, the court included the following observations at the end of its order to
support its sentence:
The Court appreciates that this sentence is the maximum
sentence. The Court further understands that the maximum
sentence is reserved for the worst offenders. The facts of this case
show that the maximum sentence is appropriate: Defendant
knowingly killed a three (3) year old child while the child was in
her care, custody and control by inflicting overwhelming brain
trauma thereby thrusting permanent emotional and psychological
damage on the victim’s ten (10) year old sister and thereafter
showed no remorse for having done so. The additional facts
that: Defendant has some criminal history and a pending
probation violation; Defendant neglected her own children
necessitating the termination of her parental rights; and
Defendant inflicted additional significant bodily injury on
Bradyn Chadwell affirmatively cement[] the Defendant as a
worst of the worst offender.
Id. at 62-63.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 15 of 22
[25] Schooler now appeals.
Discussion and Decision
[26] Schooler raises two issues on appeal. First, she contends that the evidence is
insufficient to support her murder conviction. Second, she contends that her
maximum and consecutive sentences for murder and Level 6 felony neglect of a
dependent are inappropriate.
I. Sufficiency of the Evidence
[27] Schooler contends that the evidence is insufficient to support her murder
conviction because the State “failed to present sufficient evidence beyond a
reasonable doubt that [she] was the person who inflicted a fatal injury upon
[Bradyn].” Appellant’s Br. p. 25. Instead, she claims that the facts show that
Chadwell is the one who inflicted the fatal injury. When reviewing
the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction, appellate courts must
consider only the probative evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the
verdict. Sallee v. State, 51 N.E.3d 130, 133 (Ind. 2016). It is the fact-finder’s
role, not that of appellate courts, to assess witness credibility and weigh
the evidence to determine whether it is sufficient to support a conviction. Id. It
is not necessary that the evidence “overcome every reasonable hypothesis of
innocence.” Id. (quotation omitted). The evidence is sufficient if an inference
may reasonably be drawn from it to support the verdict. Drane v. State, 867
N.E.2d 144, 147 (Ind. 2007).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 16 of 22
[28] Schooler concedes that she is “one of the two individuals” “who could have
injured [Bradyn].” Appellant’s Br. p. 23. In addition, it is undisputed that
Schooler was Bradyn’s 24/7 caretaker and was home alone with him when he
collapsed. Nevertheless, Schooler argues that “the fatal injury could have
occurred” when Chadwell was still home. Id. at 21 (emphasis added). As
support, she points to the testimony of Dr. Looman, wherein she acknowledged
that Bradyn could have suffered the fatal brain injury anywhere from minutes
before he went unresponsive up to the day before, i.e., when Chadwell was still
home. Tr. Vol. IV pp. 134-35. Agreeing with Schooler on this point, however,
would require us to ignore the evidence supporting the jury’s verdict.
[29] As the trial court recognized, the evidence did not show exactly what caused
Bradyn’s fatal brain injury. See Appellant’s App. Vol. VI p. 59 (“Nobody,
except the Defendant, may ever know which blow was the final blow.”).
However, the doctors agreed that Bradyn’s brain injuries were not caused by
falling into a fish-tank stand, a heater, or a table but rather by a violent impact.
In fact, Dr. Shapiro opined that Bradyn’s head was struck against an object
multiple times. Although it was possible that Bradyn was injured hours before
he collapsed, when Chadwell was home, Dr. Looman believed that the fatal
injury occurred “right around the time when [Bradyn] collapsed,” that is, just
“minutes” before he went unresponsive on August 12. Tr. Vol. IV pp. 134-35.
And although Dr. Shapiro testified that it was “very difficult to assign any type
of timeline,” Tr. Vol. V p. 89, he believed that Bradyn would have started
exhibiting symptoms “within minutes” of his brain being injured, id. at 85.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 17 of 22
Thus, the facts most favorable to the verdict support the conclusion that
Bradyn’s fatal brain injury occurred when Schooler, by her own admission
Bradyn’s “twenty-four-seven” caretaker, was the only person home with him.
[30] In any event, there is more evidence to support Schooler’s conviction than just
the fact that she was home alone with Bradyn when he collapsed. As laid out
above, after Bradyn collapsed, Schooler didn’t call 911 first; rather, she called
Chadwell at 1:19 p.m. Fifteen minutes later, at 1:34 p.m., she finally called
911. Starting with the 911 call, the record is full of inconsistent and false
statements given by Schooler. That is, Schooler told the 911 dispatcher that
Bradyn was on the bedroom floor and that she “just” got him out of bed. She
then said that Bradyn hit his head on the fish-tank stand and went
unresponsive. Schooler’s quick change in story prompted the 911 dispatcher to
say, “I thought you . . . OK.” Exs. 6 & 11; Tr. Vol. III p. 239. Schooler then
said that she and Chadwell got Bradyn from his mother “yesterday” and that
she was responsible for Bradyn’s injuries. Amanda, however, had been in jail
since the middle of May. When EMS arrived, Bradyn was not on the bedroom
floor; rather, he was ten steps away from the front door in the living-room area.
And although Schooler was counting out loud on the phone with the 911
dispatcher, when EMS entered the apartment Schooler was not performing
CPR (although she continued to count over the phone). Schooler then told
EMS that she and Chadwell got Bradyn from his mother five days ago.
[31] Schooler’s inconsistent and false statements continued during her interviews
with both Detective Roope and Chief Holt. For example, she said that she had
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 18 of 22
talked on the phone with Chadwell for only six seconds before calling 911; the
evidence, however, shows that she talked to Chadwell multiple times for a total
of approximately nine minutes and that she called 911 fifteen minutes after first
calling Chadwell. She also gave varying accounts regarding when they got
Bradyn from Amanda—e.g., yesterday, five days ago, two weeks ago, and two
months ago—even though Amanda had been in jail for the past three months.
In addition, Schooler claimed to have made a report to DCS about Amanda
injuring Bradyn; however, Detective Roope confirmed that no such report had
been made. Although Schooler first claimed that she had “never” spanked
Bradyn, she later admitted to spanking him with her hand and finally admitted
to spanking him with a spoon, leaving bruises. And it was not until her final
interview with Chief Holt that Schooler mentioned a brand-new incident that
had occurred a couple of days before August 12 in which she spanked Bradyn
and pushed him, causing him to hit his head “pretty hard” on the coffee table.
Moreover, at no point during the 911 call or any of her interviews did Schooler
implicate Chadwell; in fact, she claimed the opposite—that Chadwell had never
hit Bradyn. Likewise, Cheyenne testified that Schooler spanked Bradyn with
wooden and metal spoons and that she had never seen her father do so. The
jury heard this evidence, along with the evidence that Schooler believed showed
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 19 of 22
that Chadwell inflicted the fatal brain injury, and found Schooler guilty of
murder.2 The evidence is sufficient to support the jury’s verdict.3
II. Inappropriate Sentence
[32] Schooler next contends that her maximum sentence of sixty-seven-and-a-half
years for murder and Level 6 felony neglect of a dependent is inappropriate.
Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) provides that an appellate court “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.” Because we generally defer to
the judgment of trial courts in sentencing matters, Norris v. State, 27 N.E.3d 333,
335-36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), defendants have the burden of persuading us that
their sentences are inappropriate, Thompson v. State, 5 N.E.3d 383, 391 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014). “Whether a sentence is inappropriate ultimately turns on the
culpability of the defendant, the severity of the crime, the damage done to
2
Schooler argues that this case is analogous to People v. Wong, 619 N.E.2d 377 (N.Y. 1993). It is not. In that
case, a husband and wife were convicted of second-degree manslaughter and endangering the welfare of a
child for violently shaking a three-month-old infant in their care. The People’s theory at trial was that only
one of the defendants shook the baby while the other defendant, the “passive” defendant, stood by and failed
to intervene. The court concluded that because there was no evidence tending to show which of the
defendants was the “abusive actor,” “the convictions of both defendants must be reversed even though that
conclusion means that one clearly guilty party will go free.” Id. at 381, 383. In this case, however, there is
sufficient evidence showing that Schooler, the only one charged with Bradyn’s murder, is the one who
inflicted the fatal brain injury.
3
Schooler makes additional arguments concerning her aggravated-battery and neglect convictions that are
contingent on us reversing her murder conviction. However, because we are affirming Schooler’s murder
conviction, we do not address these arguments.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 20 of 22
others, and a myriad of other factors that come to light in a given
case.” Id. (citing Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219, 1224 (Ind. 2008)).
[33] Schooler concedes that Bradyn’s death “is a horrible tragedy”; however, she
continues to assert her “innocence” on appeal and claims that she only spanked
Bradyn on the bottom with a wooden spoon and is not responsible for his brain
injuries. Appellant’s Br. p. 33. However, the jury found Schooler guilty of
murder, and we have already found that the evidence is sufficient to support the
jury’s verdict. As the trial court explained in its sentencing order, Bradyn
suffered “significant trauma” including “bruising on the head and brain,”
“bleeding on the brain,” “significant swelling of the brain that squeezed brain
matter into areas of the head not meant for brain matter,” multiple fractures,
and extensive bruising all over his body. Appellant’s App. Vol. VI p. 59. We
have looked at the photographs of the injuries to Bradyn, and they are gut
wrenching and hard to look at. See, e.g., Exs. 19-31. Furthermore, the court
found that Schooler showed “an unparalleled cruel disregard for life” by failing
to call 911 for at least fifteen minutes. Appellant’s App. Vol. VI p. 59. The
nature of the offenses is horrific and supports the maximum sentence in this
case.
[34] As for Schooler’s character, she points to her “difficult upbringing,”
“insignificant criminal history,” and the fact that she “expressed sadness at
[Bradyn’s] death.” Appellant’s Br. p. 35. The trial court addressed all of these
at sentencing. The court found that Schooler’s upbringing was a mitigator but
gave it very little weight given its lack of connection to a serious murder charge.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 21 of 22
Although the trial court found Schooler’s criminal history to be aggravating, it
said that it was only “slightly more aggravating than mitigating.” Appellants
App. Vol VI p. 61. Finally, the trial court found that Schooler’s “newly found”
remorse (as exhibited by her statements in her PSI) was “a matter of
convenience” and not “true genuine remorse.” Id. at 60. But even considering
these things in Schooler’s favor, they do not overcome the horrific nature of the
offenses and other undisputed, negative aspects of Schooler’s character,
including her “exceptionally deviant” character revealed by blaming “a
demonstrably innocent mother for the death of that mother’s own three year old
child” and the fact that she “neglected her own children” and had her parental
rights terminated, which reflects that she has “a definite propensity to abuse and
neglect children.” Id. at 60-61. Schooler has failed to persuade us that her
maximum sentence is inappropriate.
[35] Affirmed.
May, J., and Altice, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 69A01-1706-CR-1254 | March 19, 2018 Page 22 of 22