ILNews

Arguments rejected in juvenile molestation appeal

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An 11-year-old boy adjudicated delinquent for acts that would be Class B and Class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult failed to persuade a Court of Appeals panel Friday that statutes as applied to him are unconstitutionally vague and the evidence didn’t support a true finding.

The case stemmed from instances in which 11-year-old T.G. touched the genitals of a six-year-old girl while the two were at a daycare center operated by T.G.’s mother. T.G. argued that “the evidence that is sufficient to establish intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desire in the case of an adult perpetrator is insufficient in the case of a child perpetrator,” according to the opinion written by Judge Terry Crone.

Crone wrote that because T.G. was significantly older than the girl, they “cannot be considered peers,” and that circumstances in T.G.’s case included repeated incidents of fondling that could lead a reasonable fact-finder to find beyond a reasonable doubt that T.G. met the statutory requirements of committing the acts to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.

“We stress that in other cases, different or additional factors may be present that shed light on the accused child’s intent,” Crone wrote in T.G. v. State of Indiana, 49A05-1305-JV-238.

The panel also turned away arguments the statutes are unconstitutionally vague and fail to provide notice of conduct prohibited for children who might not know that prohibited touching is of a sexual nature.

"We do not think that such a possibility renders the statute void for vagueness for the following reason. If a child does not know that an act would result in sexual arousal or desire, then that child could not have the required intent to have committed child molesting. If a child knows that an act would result in sexual arousal or desire, then the Child Molesting Statute provides sufficient notice to the child that such an act is prohibited," Crone wrote.

"We conclude that T.G. has failed to carry his burden to show that the Child Molesting Statute authorizes or encourages arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement. Therefore, we reject his contention that it is void for vagueness."
 
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT