ILNews

Improper venue doesn't require acquittal

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Even though the Hamilton Superior Court erred in concluding it was the proper venue for a felony child solicitation charge, the error doesn't warrant an acquittal of the conviction, the Indiana Court of Appeals concluded today. The case was remanded for retrial in the proper venue of Madison County.

In Dustin Neff v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-0904-CR-332, Dustin Neff challenged his conviction of Class C felony child solicitation. Neff chatted with "Lizzy" online, whom he believed to be a 12-year-old girl in Carmel. "Lizzy" was actually a woman from Georgia who volunteered for Perverted Justice, an organization in which volunteers try to catch adults in Internet chat rooms who try to prey on children.

In his chats with Lizzy, Neff asked for pictures, asked her if she'd want to kiss and indicated he wanted to have sexual intercourse with her. They arranged to meet at Dairy Queen in Carmel. After driving from his home in Madison County, Carmel police - who were tipped off by the volunteer from Georgia - arrested Neff after he admitted to driving there to meet Lizzy.

At closing argument, he argued Hamilton County wasn't the proper venue; the Hamilton Superior Court disagreed and he was convicted of the charge at a bench trial.

Neff challenged his conviction, arguing there isn't sufficient evidence because the information on the case alleged that "on or about May 2, 2006," Neff committed child solicitation. Neff relied on the contents of the May 2 chat, and he claimed the conversation didn't rise to the level of child solicitation. But the contents of an April 29 chat provided sufficient evidence of child solicitation, wrote Judge Michael Barnes. The precise date of the alleged solicitation isn't of the essence of the offense of child solicitation, nor was Neff misled into believing the state wouldn't rely on evidence related to the April 29 chat.

The appellate court agreed with Neff that Hamilton County wasn't the proper venue since he was in Madison County while chatting with the woman from Georgia. Neff completed all the conduct required to establish child solicitation when he sat at his computer in Madison County.

"Although venue for a chain of criminal events may lay in any county in which any of the events occurred, Neff did not engage in any conduct in furtherance of child solicitation in Hamilton County," wrote the judge.

Then the issue arose whether the venue error would lead to an acquittal of the charges or if he could be retried in Madison County.

"The question here, then, is whether our reversal of Neff's conviction due to improper venue is an acquittal based upon insufficient evidence or a reversal based on legal error for double jeopardy purposes. We conclude it is the latter," Judge Barnes wrote.

The state's failure to prove venue in Hamilton County was not a failure to prove an element of the offense and implies nothing with respect to Neff's guilt or innocence. The case is to be transferred to Madison County for further proceedings.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. He TIL team,please zap this comment too since it was merely marking a scammer and not reflecting on the story. Thanks, happy Monday, keep up the fine work.

  2. You just need my social security number sent to your Gmail account to process then loan, right? Beware scammers indeed.

  3. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  4. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  5. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

ADVERTISEMENT