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

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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT