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.


  • 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

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.