ILNews

IBA: A Review of 2011 Criminal Law Legislation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Joel Schumm mug Schumm

By Joel Schumm, Professor of Law, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis

What looked early in 2011 like a blockbuster year for sentencing reform fizzled into a legislative session with mostly tinkering in the criminal law realm. This article summarizes some of the bills that took effect July 1 and concludes with a summary of failed sentencing reform.

Texting. Few doubt that texting while driving is a bad idea, but the ban enacted in HEA 1129 may create more problems than it solves. Only those who type, transmit, or read a text or email message while operating a motor vehicle commit a Class C infraction. Drivers remain free to dial their phone, read the New York Times app, Google any term they’d like, or play Angry Birds. Police may not confiscate the “telecommunications device,” but could presumably ask consent to see it, which savvy drivers will refuse. If an officer tickets a person for the infraction, proof may be difficult at trial without the phone unless the driver makes an admission. Moreover, many defendants will be charged with criminal offenses when an officer sees contraband in their vehicle. If courts find the officer lacked “an objectively reasonable reason,” the evidence will be suppressed. See State v. Massey, 887 N.E.2d 151, 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008).

Sexting. HEA 1083 creates a new defense to the crimes of child exploitation and obscene performance before minor for the consensual exchange of sexual pictures if the defendant is 21 or younger, using a wireless device or social networking site, and engaged in an “ongoing personal relationship” (but not a family member) with the other person who is within four years of the defendant’s age. The defense does not apply if the message is sent to others.

Restricted Records. Although Indiana’s expungement statute continues to allow a very narrow group of individuals a complete obliteration of records, HEA 1211 provides more limited relief for a broader class of arrest and conviction records.

Arrest. Under Indiana Code section 35-38-5-5.5, an individual arrested but not prosecuted, acquitted of all charges, or vindicated on appeal may petition to restrict access of the arrest record. If successful, the court shall order the state police not to disclose or permit disclosure of the arrest record to noncriminal justice organizations.

Conviction. Those convicted or adjudicated delinquent of a misdemeanor or D felony that did not result in injury may petition to restrict their conviction record. The defendant must wait eight years, have satisfied all obligations of the sentence, and cannot have been convicted of any felonies in the interim. The new bill expressly states “the person may legally state on an application for employment or any other document that the person has not been arrested for or convicted of the felony or misdemeanor recorded in the restricted records.” Some of this information, though, may already be available to companies that do background checks or be accessible through court records or elsewhere. The legislation may need to be revisited to meet its well-intentioned goal of giving people a second chance.

Drugs. Senate Bill 57 broadened all existing prohibitions on marijuana possession and dealing to include synthetic cannabinoid and salvia.

Voyeurism. In response to a highly publicized Marion County case of a man who put a camera on his shoe to look up dresses at a mall, the voyeurism statute was broadened to create the offense of public voyeurism for the non-consensual “peep[ing] at the private area of an individual.” Previously, voyeurism required peeping in areas where people were reasonably expected to disrobe, which did not include mall hallways.

Failed Sentencing Reform. After months of study, the 15-0 support of the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission, and Governor Daniels’ endorsement, Senate Bill 561 proposed a shift from Indiana’s “’one size fits all’ sentencing policy for a theft and drug offenses to a more graduated approach.” Sen. Richard Bray et al., Time to Revisit Our Criminal Code, Res Gestae, Jan./Feb. 2011, at 14-15. Among other things, the bill would have reduced many felony drug offense by one class felony if less than ten grams were involved and restricted enhancements for proximity to parks, schools, family housing complexes, and youth centers to 200 (instead of 1000) feet. It would also have reduced theft from a felony to a misdemeanor unless the property taken was valued at $750 or more or the defendant had a prior theft conviction. It wasn’t long before “prosecutors assailed [the bill] as soft on crime, senators gutted the bill and even lengthened sentences for some offenders.” Heather Gillers, Daniels: I’ll Veto Amended Prison Bill, Indianapolis Star, Mar. 23, 2011, at A1. The Governor threatened a veto of the new bill that no longer achieved the goal of graduated penalties and “smarter incarceration,” and the bill died. Id. Hopefully many of these sensible proposals will be revived next year.•

ADVERTISEMENT

  • no subject
    Voyeurism. In response to a highly publicized Marion County case of a man who put a camera on his shoe to look up dresses at a mall, the voyeurism statute was broadened to create the offense of public voyeurism for the non-consensual “peep[ing] at the private area of an individual.” Previously, voyeurism required peeping in areas where people were reasonably expected to disrobe, which did not include mall hallways. Ramji & Associates Houston Personal Injury Attorney

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. Applause, applause, applause ..... but, is this duty to serve the constitutional order not much more incumbent upon the State, whose only aim is to be pure and unadulterated justice, than defense counsel, who is also charged with gaining a result for a client? I agree both are responsible, but it seems to me that the government attorneys bear a burden much heavier than defense counsel .... "“I note, much as we did in Mechling v. State, 16 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. denied, that the attorneys representing the State and the defendant are both officers of the court and have a responsibility to correct any obvious errors at the time they are committed."

  2. Do I have to hire an attorney to get co-guardianship of my brother? My father has guardianship and my older sister was his co-guardian until this Dec 2014 when she passed and my father was me to go on as the co-guardian, but funds are limit and we need to get this process taken care of quickly as our fathers health isn't the greatest. So please advise me if there is anyway to do this our self or if it requires a lawyer? Thank you

  3. I have been on this program while on parole from 2011-2013. No person should be forced mentally to share private details of their personal life with total strangers. Also giving permission for a mental therapist to report to your parole agent that your not participating in group therapy because you don't have the financial mean to be in the group therapy. I was personally singled out and sent back three times for not having money and also sent back within the six month when you aren't to be sent according to state law. I will work to het this INSOMM's removed from this state. I also had twelve or thirteen parole agents with a fifteen month period. Thanks for your time.

  4. Our nation produces very few jurists of the caliber of Justice DOUGLAS and his peers these days. Here is that great civil libertarian, who recognized government as both a blessing and, when corrupted by ideological interests, a curse: "Once the investigator has only the conscience of government as a guide, the conscience can become ‘ravenous,’ as Cromwell, bent on destroying Thomas More, said in Bolt, A Man For All Seasons (1960), p. 120. The First Amendment mirrors many episodes where men, harried and harassed by government, sought refuge in their conscience, as these lines of Thomas More show: ‘MORE: And when we stand before God, and you are sent to Paradise for doing according to your conscience, *575 and I am damned for not doing according to mine, will you come with me, for fellowship? ‘CRANMER: So those of us whose names are there are damned, Sir Thomas? ‘MORE: I don't know, Your Grace. I have no window to look into another man's conscience. I condemn no one. ‘CRANMER: Then the matter is capable of question? ‘MORE: Certainly. ‘CRANMER: But that you owe obedience to your King is not capable of question. So weigh a doubt against a certainty—and sign. ‘MORE: Some men think the Earth is round, others think it flat; it is a matter capable of question. But if it is flat, will the King's command make it round? And if it is round, will the King's command flatten it? No, I will not sign.’ Id., pp. 132—133. DOUGLAS THEN WROTE: Where government is the Big Brother,11 privacy gives way to surveillance. **909 But our commitment is otherwise. *576 By the First Amendment we have staked our security on freedom to promote a multiplicity of ideas, to associate at will with kindred spirits, and to defy governmental intrusion into these precincts" Gibson v. Florida Legislative Investigation Comm., 372 U.S. 539, 574-76, 83 S. Ct. 889, 908-09, 9 L. Ed. 2d 929 (1963) Mr. Justice DOUGLAS, concurring. I write: Happy Memorial Day to all -- God please bless our fallen who lived and died to preserve constitutional governance in our wonderful series of Republics. And God open the eyes of those government officials who denounce the constitutions of these Republics by arbitrary actions arising out capricious motives.

  5. From back in the day before secularism got a stranglehold on Hoosier jurists comes this great excerpt via Indiana federal court judge Allan Sharp, dedicated to those many Indiana government attorneys (with whom I have dealt) who count the law as a mere tool, an optional tool that is not to be used when political correctness compels a more acceptable result than merely following the path that the law directs: ALLEN SHARP, District Judge. I. In a scene following a visit by Henry VIII to the home of Sir Thomas More, playwriter Robert Bolt puts the following words into the mouths of his characters: Margaret: Father, that man's bad. MORE: There is no law against that. ROPER: There is! God's law! MORE: Then God can arrest him. ROPER: Sophistication upon sophistication! MORE: No, sheer simplicity. The law, Roper, the law. I know what's legal not what's right. And I'll stick to what's legal. ROPER: Then you set man's law above God's! MORE: No, far below; but let me draw your attention to a fact I'm not God. The currents and eddies of right and wrong, which you find such plain sailing, I can't navigate. I'm no voyager. But in the thickets of law, oh, there I'm a forester. I doubt if there's a man alive who could follow me there, thank God... ALICE: (Exasperated, pointing after Rich) While you talk, he's gone! MORE: And go he should, if he was the Devil himself, until he broke the law! ROPER: So now you'd give the Devil benefit of law! MORE: Yes. What would you do? Cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil? ROPER: I'd cut down every law in England to do that! MORE: (Roused and excited) Oh? (Advances on Roper) And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned round on you where would you hide, Roper, the laws being flat? (He leaves *1257 him) This country's planted thick with laws from coast to coast man's laws, not God's and if you cut them down and you're just the man to do it d'you really think you would stand upright in the winds that would blow then? (Quietly) Yes, I'd give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety's sake. ROPER: I have long suspected this; this is the golden calf; the law's your god. MORE: (Wearily) Oh, Roper, you're a fool, God's my god... (Rather bitterly) But I find him rather too (Very bitterly) subtle... I don't know where he is nor what he wants. ROPER: My God wants service, to the end and unremitting; nothing else! MORE: (Dryly) Are you sure that's God! He sounds like Moloch. But indeed it may be God And whoever hunts for me, Roper, God or Devil, will find me hiding in the thickets of the law! And I'll hide my daughter with me! Not hoist her up the mainmast of your seagoing principles! They put about too nimbly! (Exit More. They all look after him). Pgs. 65-67, A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS A Play in Two Acts, Robert Bolt, Random House, New York, 1960. Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen. of Indiana, Indianapolis, for defendants. Childs v. Duckworth, 509 F. Supp. 1254, 1256 (N.D. Ind. 1981) aff'd, 705 F.2d 915 (7th Cir. 1983)

ADVERTISEMENT