ILNews

Decision resolves conflicting appellate rulings

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An offense of attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors can be committed when a defendant attempts to transmit prohibited matter by the Internet to an adult police detective posing as a minor, the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Tuesday.

The high court granted transfer to Andrew King v. State of Indiana, No. 49S04-0911-CR-507, to resolve a conflict in Indiana Court of Appeals decisions in Alpin v. State, 889 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), and Gibbs v. State, 898 N.E.2d 1240 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008). King argued there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors because the material was actually received by an adult police officer. He claimed because it's not a crime to send such material over the Internet to someone who is over 18, it isn't a crime to attempt to engage in that activity. King also argued that subsection (b)(3) of the dissemination statute operates to exempt the statute from the general attempt statute and indicates the legislature's intent to not criminalize the transmission unless the recipient is actually a minor.

The justices examined the statutes defining attempt and dissemination of matter or conducting performance harmful to minors and upheld King's conviction. The general attempt statute applies to dissemination of matter harmful to minors and the crime of attempted dissemination isn't precluded when the intended minor recipient is actually an adult, wrote Justice Brent Dickson. The essence of an attempt is that one or more elements of an offense are not fully satisfied, but a defendant still has taken a substantial step toward the offense while acting with the requisite intent of that offense. If each of the elements of an offense is fully satisfied, the charged offense will be the offense, not an attempt of that offense.

In King's case, he sent the inappropriate matter to someone he thought was younger than 18 years old. The only element not met for the offense of disseminating matter harmful to minors is that the recipient was not younger than 18. Because the recipient was not a minor, the defendant was charged with attempted dissemination, rather than dissemination, of matter harmful to minors, wrote Justice Dickson.

As a result of their ruling, the justices disapproved and overruled Alpin and Gibbs to the extent that they may be read to prohibit convictions for attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors where the supposed minor is actually an adult.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT