ILNews

Judge: Man did not commit attempted child exploitation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals split on whether a man committed attempted child exploitation when he tried to take pictures up teenagers’ skirts at a mall using a camera attached to his shoe.

On interlocutory appeal, David Delagrange challenged the trial court’s decision to not dismiss four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation for trying to snap pictures under four girls’ skirts. The alleged victims were 17 years old or 15 years old. He argued that the statutory definition of “sexual conduct” in place at the time when he tried to take the photos doesn’t describe his activity. The element of “sexual conduct” the parties discuss is “exhibition of the uncovered genitals intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desires of any person … .”

Because he was charged with attempted child exploitation, it doesn’t matter whether he actually took photographs of uncovered genitals, the majority concluded. Senior Judge John Sharpnack and Judge Terry Crone also found his behavior was sufficient to constitute an attempted exhibition as described by statute.

“The State has alleged that Delagrange knowingly or intentionally attempted to create an image of sexual conduct, which is a sufficient statement of Delagrange’s mental state to survive a motion to dismiss. At trial, the State will bear the burden of proving that Delagrange possessed the culpable mental state, but the State does not need to meet that burden of proof at this stage,” wrote Judge Sharpnack in David Delagrange v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1010-CR-1086.

Judge John Baker dissented because he believed Delagrange’s activity at the Indianapolis mall didn’t satisfy the definition of “sexual conduct” as set forth Indiana Code 35-42-4-4 because nothing he did that day could be considered to have involved the “exhibition of the uncovered genitals intended to satisfy or arouse the sexual desire of any person.” His photographs may be morally unacceptable and alarming, but they don’t amount to attempted child exploitation under the current versions of statute, he wrote.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Baker Dissents to Protect Attempt Child Exploitation
    Your headline should either confirm the majority opinion that Mr. Delagrange was attempting to exploit 3-17 year old girls and 1-15 year old girl by surreptitiously photographing UNDER their skirts or you should note Judge Baker's minority dissent that he doesn't believe such conduct is covered by Indiana law. Both your headline and the case itself are head shakers.

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

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT