ILNews

Kissing a sleeping victim doesn't constitute sexual battery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A victim being asleep isn’t equivalent to a mental disability or deficiency for purposes of the sexual battery statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

Ronald Ball was convicted of Class D felony sexual battery for kissing and licking Shaun Dozier’s face while she was asleep. Once she awoke, she asked him to stop, and he left her apartment where he had been hanging out. Dozier uses a wheelchair and takes pain medication that can affect her memory, but the state never argued this made her mentally disabled or deficient for purposes of the sexual battery statute.

At issue in the case is whether Dozier’s being asleep at the time of the battery rendered her “so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to the touching cannot be given” requiring Ball to be convicted of Class D felony sexual battery.

No case has considered this issue, so the Court of Appeals turned to the rape and criminal deviate conduct statutes, which also include identical language – the force or threat of force and mental disability or deficiency prongs – that are found in the sexual battery statute.  

But those crimes also include a third prong not in the sexual battery statute: a person may be convicted under the rape or criminal deviate conduct statutes if the victim is unaware the conduct is occurring. Under those statutes, being asleep only has supported a conviction charged under the unawareness prong, not the mentally disabled or deficient prong, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb in Roland Ball v. State of Indiana, No. 06A01-1007-CR-426.

“The plain meaning of ‘mentally disabled or deficient,’ as well as the facts of the cases in which a victim has been found to be mentally disabled or deficient, would exclude a temporary, natural state such as sleep from inclusion in that phrase. Moreover, the legislature did not include in the sexual battery statute the ‘unawareness’ provision included in other sex offense statutes, and we believe it would be disharmonious to construe ‘mentally disabled or deficient’ to include sleep for purposes of the sexual battery statute when the same phrase does not include sleep for purposes of the other sexual offense statutes,” wrote the chief judge. “We therefore conclude that being asleep does not constitute being mentally disabled or deficient.”

The state failed to prove the element of mental disability or deficiency beyond a reasonable doubt, so the judges reversed Ball’s Class D felony sexual battery conviction. However, the evidence supports entering a judgment against him for Class B misdemeanor battery.

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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT