ILNews

COA affirms voyeurism charge for would-be prosecutor; Supreme Court issues suspension

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has affirmed a voyeurism charge for William R. Wallace, a former candidate for Gibson County prosecutor. Wallace, who videotaped himself and a woman engaged in sexual intercourse, had filed an interlocutory appeal, claiming that he was innocent of Class D felony voyeurism because the sex was consensual.

In William R. Wallace v. State of Indiana, No.26A01-1101-CR-9, Wallace had visited a woman – A.J. – while she was in jail in 2009 and offered her legal representation. She was initially scheduled to be released on Sept. 29 of that year, and Wallace later told her that date had been pushed back, but that if she agreed to have sex with him upon her release, he could ensure that she would get out of jail on Sept. 29.

After her release, A.J. met Wallace at an apartment belonging to Wallace’s friend. She engaged in sex with Wallace, unaware that he had videotaped the encounter. In March 2010, A.J. contacted police after she learned Wallace had shown the videotape to her boyfriend. The boyfriend told police that the video showed Wallace turning on the camera before A.J. entered the room, and that the camera continued to run after she left. A.J. demanded Wallace turn over the recording, and after at first denying it existed, he claimed he had destroyed it.

A police investigation ensued, and a search of Wallace’s home and the apartment where the video was recorded turned up at least two recordings of Wallace engaging in sex with women and a DVD of child pornography. A grand jury indicted Wallace on charges of Class D felony obstruction of justice, Class D felony possession of child pornography, Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute and Class B misdemeanor false informing. The Class D voyeurism charge was added on Nov. 30, 2010.

On appeal, Wallace argued that because A.J. knowingly disrobed in front of him, he could not be charged with voyeurism. But the COA held that she did not consent to being videotaped, that Wallace was aware of that fact, and that he tried to conceal the recording from officers searching his home. The appellate court therefore affirmed the trial court’s order denying Wallace’s motion to dismiss the voyeurism charge.

In a separate but concurring opinion, Judge Michael Barnes wrote that A.J. “made a barter choice, and I do not think she is a typical ‘victim’ envisaged by this statute.”

The Indiana Supreme Court published order No. 26S00-1112-DI-700, dated Jan. 27, suspending Wallace due to being found guilty of a crime punishable as a felony. The order states the suspension will continue until further order of the court or final resolution of disciplinary action.

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I work with some older lawyers in the 70s, 80s, and they are sharp as tacks compared to the foggy minded, undisciplined, inexperienced, listless & aimless "youths" being churned out by the diploma mill law schools by the tens of thousands. A client is generally lucky to land a lawyer who has decided to stay in practice a long time. Young people shouldn't kid themselves. Experience is golden especially in something like law. When you start out as a new lawyer you are about as powerful as a babe in the cradle. Whereas the silver halo of age usually crowns someone who can strike like thunder.

  2. YES I WENT THROUGH THIS BEFORE IN A DIFFERENT SITUATION WITH MY YOUNGEST SON PEOPLE NEED TO LEAVE US ALONE WITH DCS IF WE ARE NOT HURTING OR NEGLECT OUR CHILDREN WHY ARE THEY EVEN CALLED OUT AND THE PEOPLE MAKING FALSE REPORTS NEED TO GO TO JAIL AND HAVE A CLASS D FELONY ON THERE RECORD TO SEE HOW IT FEELS. I WENT THREW ALOT WHEN HE WAS TAKEN WHAT ELSE DOES THESE SCHOOL WANT ME TO SERVE 25 YEARS TO LIFE ON LIES THERE TELLING OR EVEN LE SAME THING LIED TO THE COUNTY PROSECUTOR JUST SO I WOULD GET ARRESTED AND GET TIME HE THOUGHT AND IT TURNED OUT I DID WHAT I HAD TO DO NOT PROUD OF WHAT HAPPEN AND SHOULD KNOW ABOUT SEEKING MEDICAL ATTENTION FOR MY CHILD I AM DISABLED AND SICK OF GETTING TREATED BADLY HOW WOULD THEY LIKE IT IF I CALLED APS ON THEM FOR A CHANGE THEN THEY CAN COME AND ARREST THEM RIGHT OUT OF THE SCHOOL. NOW WE ARE HOMELESS AND THE CHILDREN ARE STAYING WITH A RELATIVE AND GUARDIAN AND THE SCHOOL WON'T LET THEM GO TO SCHOOL THERE BUT WANT THEM TO GO TO SCHOOL WHERE BULLYING IS ALLOWED REAL SMART THINKING ON A SCHOOL STAFF.

  3. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  4. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  5. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

ADVERTISEMENT