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. 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