User Rating: 5 / 5

Star activeStar activeStar activeStar activeStar active

Convicted Child Molester Karl Wikstrom received 124 years today in the Miami County Circuit Court.

Karl A. Wikstrom Jr., 42, (last known address) 1069 North Lincoln Street, was handed down the sentence by Judge Tim Spahr.

A Miami County Jury convicted Wikstrom in early December of five counts of Class A felony Child Molesting, and one count of Class B felony Child Solicitation.

Wikstrom and his, then wife, Leslie Wikstrom, who now resides in the Rockville Women’s Correctional Facility, both sexually abused two girls under the age of 13 in their home for more than two years repeatedly.

Peter Dietrichs, prosecuting attorney, called one witness to the stand today to testify in the sentencing hearing.

Terry Valentine is one of the trauma-focused cognitive behavioral therapists who has been treating the girls since August 2012 for Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder.

She reported both girls had been in treatment weekly since August 2012, one of the girls had a five-day in-patient stay, and that treatment would likely continue for some time.

Defense Attorney David Rosselot argued that the girls would have been more traumatized by the sexual abuse of their mother than of Mr. Wikstrom, and at one point brought in specific vulgar sexual facts of the abuse challenging her.

wickstrom5Additionally, he reported a mitigating factor was that Mr. Wikstrom would likely never victimize these children again.

In a case, which was so shocking to the senses of the law enforcement community, the jury, and even the judge, Spahr explained his ruling today in spite of pleas from Defense Attorney David Rosselot that mitigating factors in the case should be considered.

“In looking at the situation the court has been struck by what the jurors in this case were presented with and what the court has also been presented with,” Spahr began. “We live in a place where I think people have a lot of good core values and a lot of desire to raise our children the right way. People want to protect children from being exposed to things that are improper, and yet in this case, the children were not exposed to things that they should have been.”

“I was struck during the testimony in this case by the highly sexual atmosphere in this defendant’s home,” Spahr continued explaining. “I heard testimony about how there were pornographic videos playing, if not every day, nearly every day. It seems it could be heard through the bedroom doors. Noisy sex, the kids could hear, and then at the Skyview Motel, the pornos and sex going on with the kids sleeping in the same room in the next bed over. (Exacerbated sigh) That’s not the sort of conduct that we want our children to be exposed to. One of the aggravators that’s been suggested by probation, by the State, This defendant was in the position to be in the care and control of those children. We do expect parents and step-parents to care for, and protect, and properly educate the children in their homes. And here there’s daily exposure to enough sexual activity… it’s not the sort of education we want the children to receive.”

“They (the victims) have been consistently and continuously in counseling,” Spahr continued in his statement, “now for approaching two and a half years. And even after all that time it seems that more counseling is still needed. The court also wonders, having been exposed to the environment that these girls have been exposed to, is it ever possible… I mean it seems like it is going to be such a challenge for those children to be able to have normal relationships as an adult…. when in fact, they may model their home and their childhood. They’ve been exposed to so many things that I’ve mentioned, but they’ve also been exposed to the things that a jury has concluded that has been done to them. So I can conclude that both of the suggested aggravators are appropriate ones.”

“I weigh against that,” Spahr said, “and do have to conclude that the defendant in this case is different than defendants that we see in some cases in that he’s never been convicted of a criminal offense, and he’s past the age of 40. But I do have to say I do have to give clear consideration and weight also to what Mr. (Peter) Deitrichs (Prosecuting Attorney) has argued which is that there has been criminal activity, it’s just never resulted in charges and/or conviction, but it’s been acknowledged. It certainly appears from the testimony in this trial, it is clear that there was extensive and continued drug activity, illegal drug activity on the part of both of the adults in the home, both Mr. Wikstrom and his wife. And I do say that that certainly blunts the argument that the lack of criminal history… the lack of criminal convictions… that blunts the argument that it’s a significant mitigater.

“The Court at this point has considered the balance between the aggravating and mitigating factors,” Spahr said.

For Count #1: Child Molesting a Class C felony, Spahr ordered Wikstrom to serve 4 years in the Indiana Department of Corrections.

For Count #2: Child Solicitation, a Class D felony, Spahr ordered Wikstrom to serve one and one half years in the Indiana Department of Corrections.

Both counts #1 and #2 are to be served concurrently, or at the same time.

For Counts #3, 4, 5, and 7: All Child Molesting, all Class A felonies, Spahr ordered Wikstrom to serve 30 years for each count in the Indiana Department of Corrections, consecutively( following each other) to each other, and consecutively to Counts #1 and #2.

Wikstrom was given credit for serving 812 days in the Miami County Jail and received a sentence of 124 years.

He was also ordered to pay court costs and fees.

Judge Spahr also ordered a post-conviction no-contact order for Wikstrom with his victims and strongly expressed to him that he never contact his victims again.

Once Wikstrom serves his entire sentence he is ordered to remain on parole for the rest of his life and be registered as a violent sex offender.

At the conclusion of his sentencing hearing, Spahr asked Wikstrom if he intended to file an appeal in which Wikstrom responded, “Yes I do.”

Spahr reported Wikstrom was entitled to a State Public Defender to deal with the appeal.

Leslie Wikstrom received a plea agreement in this case. In exchange for her testimony against Wikstrom, she was sentenced to ten years with four years suspended. She is due to be released from prison this year.

She is also forbidden from having contact with the children and must register as a sex offender.

Editor’s Note: While it is usually the policy of Peru Miami News to run a charging Probable Cause Affidavit from the investigating officer in its entirety in our newspaper, this case involved the repeated molestation of two young girls under the age of 14 over the course of two years.

The facts of this case, as outlined in the Probable Cause Affidavits and in the testimony of witnesses, victims, and even facts entered into evidence during questioning from the attorney’s in this case, are so sexually explicit and shocking to the senses, that we are unwilling to print them in this case.

Log in at the bottom of the page to post comments

Category: Courts

Sponsorship Goal

% 100
donation thermometer
donation thermometer
% 32
donation thermometer

Community of Character