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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT