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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT