High court splits on molestation conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court was divided Wednesday in an opinion regarding whether a man could be charged with Class C felony child molesting 16 years after he last molested his stepniece.

Jeffery Sloan was convicted of Class A felony and Class C felony child molesting of his stepniece nearly 20 years after the last time he molested her. During the molestations when she was between the ages of six and 13, he told his stepniece that she should not tell anyone and that she would go to jail if she did. After 1991, the victim, M.A., began having less contact with Sloan, and she finally told her stepfather in 2007 about the molestations. She reported the molestation to the authorities in 2008.

Sloan filed a motion to dismiss his Class C felony charge, claiming it was filed well after the five-year statute of limitations. The Class A felony charge is not subject to a statute of limitations. The state argued Sloan committed acts of concealment which tolled the statute of limitations. The court denied his motion, and after he was convicted on both charges Sloan tried to have the judgment vacated, claiming double jeopardy violations. That motion was also denied and he was sentenced to 46 years.

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed his Class C felony conviction, holding that tolling ends under the concealment statute when the defendant’s acts of concealment terminated, not when the victim tells authorities about the crime. It claimed under the concealment-tolling provision of Indiana Code 35-41-4-2(h)(2), the concealment ended in 1991 when the molestations ended and Sloan and his victim had less contact with each other.

But in Jeffery Sloan v. State of Indiana, No. 18S04-1009-CR-502, the majority of justices disagreed, citing Crider v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1151 (Ind. 1988), and I.C. 35-41-4-2(h)(2).

“The tolling provision affords a bright-line rule: once concealment has been found, tolling ends when evidence sufficient to charge the defendant becomes known to the prosecuting authority if that authority could not have discovered the evidence by the exercise of due diligence. Crider interpreted Indiana Code section 35-41-4-2(h)(2) accordingly,” wrote Justice Steven David for the majority. “In cases where threats or intimidation of a victim amount to concealment, the means by which a prosecuting authority becomes aware of sufficient evidence is often through the victim’s disclosure to that authority.”

The majority held once concealment is found, the relevant inquiry is when the prosecuting authority becomes aware or should have become aware of sufficient evidence to charge the defendant, and at that point, tolling ends and the statute of limitations begins to run.

Justice David noted that a strict reading of I.C. 35-41-4-2(h)(2) could toll the statutes of limitations for many other crimes, and that courts will still need to determine whether concealment exists in the first place.

On this matter, Justice Frank Sullivan dissented to which Justice Robert Rucker concurred. Justice Sullivan found himself in an “intermediate” position between what the majority held and how the Court of Appeals ruled.

“I do not agree with the Court of Appeals that once the defendant ceases threats and intimidation, the statute begins to run. Here the majority is most persuasive in pointing out that a victim may be too scared to report a molestation long after any specific threats or intimidation have ended,” he wrote. “In my view, the statutory tolling period should cease at the point in time when the victim no longer reasonably fears material retaliation or other adverse consequences from a defendant’s threats or intimidation.”

He believed it was clear that more than five years had passed since the time the victim ended reasonably fearing material retaliation or adverse consequences for reporting the crimes.

The majority also addressed Sloan’s double jeopardy claims, finding the state established that Sloan committed two separate criminal offenses based on distinct facts. They upheld his convictions and sentence.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I think the cops are doing a great job locking up criminals. The Murder rates in the inner cities are skyrocketing and you think that too any people are being incarcerated. Maybe we need to lock up more of them. We have the ACLU, BLM, NAACP, Civil right Division of the DOJ, the innocent Project etc. We have court system with an appeal process that can go on for years, with attorneys supplied by the government. I'm confused as to how that translates into the idea that the defendants are not being represented properly. Maybe the attorneys need to do more Pro-Bono work

  2. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  3. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  4. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  5. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.