Judge denies appeals from 2 convicted child molesters

PALMER — In two separate cases, a state appellate judge rejected the appeals of men who raised unusual defenses when accused of molesting Valley children. In opinions handed down last week, Court of Appeals Chief Judge Robert Coats wrote that Mario Paradiso and Dana Spindler were rightfully convicted of sexually abusing minors in 2007.

In a non-jury trial in March of 2009, Paradiso argued that he had taken a powerful sleeping medication just before he molested two girls, ages 5 and 7 at the time.

“He contended that he was under the influence of Ambien and was essentially asleep at the time he committed the acts of sexual abuse,” Coats wrote.

On appeal, Paradiso argued that Superior Court Judge Vanessa White incorrectly categorized his Ambien defense as an “affirmative defense” — a legal term used most often in self-defense cases in which a defendant admits he committed the crime but shouldn’t be found criminally liable for it because he either didn’t do it knowingly or did it for a very good reason.

In the second case, Spindler argued that when he molested a 13-year-old girl in 2007 he thought he was touching the girl’s mother.

Visit Frontiersman.com for a longer version of this story.

He admits he molested the girl but contends he didn’t know he was doing it.

Spindler argued that wasn’t an affirmative defense and prosecutors should have been required to prove he knew he was touching the girl and not her mother.

Spindler’s case also was a non-jury trial, and the judge, in this case Superior Court Judge Kari Kristiansen, also unambiguously stated that the state, even if it didn’t have to, had proven Spindler knew what he was doing.

“Specifically,” Coats writes, “Judge Kristiansen concluded that the state proved … beyond a reasonable doubt that (Spindler) did knowingly engage in sexual contact.”

Spindler raises a second point of appeal, arguing that he shouldn’t have been found guilty of indecent exposure in addition to sexual abuse of a minor because his victim gave inconsistent statements. On appeal, Coats wrote, the courts don’t evaluate whether a witness was credible, but only makes sure the judge ruled that the witness was credible.

“Judge Kristiansen recognized that there were ‘some inconsistencies’ in (the girl’s) statements. But Judge Kristiansen found that in all significant matters, (the girl’s statements) were consistent,” Coats wrote.

Contact reporter Andrew Wellner at andrew.wellner@frontiersman.com or 352-2270.