ILNews

COA: Let a sex offender stipulate

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A convicted sex offender accused of failing to register will get a new trial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled today.

The unanimous three-judge panel in Darrick T. McClain v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-0808-CR-428, reversed and remanded McClain's jury trial conviction for failing to register as a sex offender, finding the Allen Superior Court abused its discretion.

Convicted of sexual battery in 1999, McClain was required to register with police and he did that in March 2007, listing his sister's Fort Wayne home as his new address. His sister later saw her address listed on the online sex offender registry and informed police that McClain wasn't living there; he was eventually charged.

At trial, he offered to stipulate to his sex offender status and to the fact that he'd listed his sister's home address on his registration form. But the state didn't agree, and entered into evidence over McClain's objection the registration form that also included details about his prior sex offense.

But turning to U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Old Chief v. United States, 519 U.S. 172, 190 (1997), the appellate panel found that the lower court should not have admitted the form into evidence because it was prejudicial. Not admitting it at trial would not have interfered with the state's ability to prove that McClain was a sex offender required to register - as he'd offered to stipulate.

"Here, we also find the reasoning in Old Chief applies and hold that McClain's offer to stipulate that he is a sex offender precludes admission of the registration form at trial," the court wrote. "The prejudicial impact of the details of his sexual battery conviction is clear, and that evidence has no probative value in relation to the instant offense."

Since several witnesses testified at trial that McClain was residing with his sister when he filled out the form, the court determined it couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the probable impact of the prejudicial evidence didn't affect the jury and McClain's rights.

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT