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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Or does the study merely wish they fade away? “It just hasn’t risen substantially in decades,” Joan Williams, director of the Center for WorkLife Law at the University of California Hastings College of the Law told Law360. “What we should be looking for is progress, and that’s not what we’re seeing.” PROGRESS = less white males in leadership. Thus the heading and honest questions here ....

  2. One need not wonder why we are importing sex slaves into North America. Perhaps these hapless victims of human trafficking were being imported for a book of play with the Royal Order of Jesters? https://medium.com/@HeapingHelping/who-are-the-royal-order-of-jesters-55ffe6f6acea Indianapolis hosts these major pervs in a big way .... https://www.facebook.com/pages/The-Royal-Order-of-Jesters-National-Office/163360597025389 I wonder what affect they exert on Hoosier politics? And its judiciary? A very interesting program on their history and preferences here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtgBdUtw26c

  3. Joseph Buser, Montgomery County Chief Prosecutor, has been involved in both representing the State of Indiana as Prosecutor while filing as Representing Attorney on behalf of himself and the State of Indiana in Civil Proceedings for seized cash and merchandise using a Verified Complaint For Forfeiture of Motor Vehicle, Us Currency And Reimbursement Of Costs, as is evident in Montgomery County Circuit Court Case Number 54C01-1401-MI-000018, CCS below, seen before Judge Harry Siamas, and filed on 01/13/2014. Sheriff Mark Castille is also named. All three defendants named by summons have prior convictions under Mr. Buser, which as the Indiana Supreme Court, in the opinion of The Matter of Mark R. McKinney, No. 18S00-0905-DI-220, stated that McKinney created a conflict of interest by simultaneously prosecuting drug offender cases while pocketing assets seized from defendants in those cases. All moneys that come from forfeitures MUST go to the COMMON SCHOOL FUND.

  4. I was incarcerated at that time for driving while suspended I have no felonies...i was placed on P block I remember several girls and myself asking about voting that day..and wasn't given a answer or means of voting..we were told after the election who won that was it.

  5. The number one way to reduce suffering would be to ban the breeding of fighting dogs. Fighting dogs maim and kill victim dogs Fighting dogs are the most essential piece of dog fighting Dog fighting will continue as long as fighting dogs are struggling to reach each other and maul another fih.longaphernalia

ADVERTISEMENT