ILNews

Judges differ in interpretation of earlier ruling

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A panel of Indiana Court of Appeals judges disagreed today as to whether a man's convictions of attempted sexual misconduct with a minor and attempted dissemination of matter harmful to minors should be reversed because his intended victim was actually a police officer conducting an online sting operation.

In Randy Gibbs v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0712-CR-1017, the majority determined in light of Alpin v. State, 889 N.E.2d 882 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008), two of Randy Gibbs' convictions should be overturned. Gibbs had communicated over the Internet with someone that he believed to be a 15-year-old girl, had graphic sexual conversations with her, sent her illicit pictures, and then arranged to meet her at an apartment complex. Gibbs was arrested at the apartment complex and had brought rope and condoms with him.

The majority affirmed his conviction of child solicitation, but reversed his other two convictions based on the wording of the statutes for those crimes. The majority disagreed with the state's argument that Alpin was decided incorrectly, noting that it had to be decided correctly since the Indiana Supreme Court denied transfer. Citing Alpin, the majority noted that to be convicted of child solicitation, a person has to "believe" the victim is a child whereas to be convicted of sexual misconduct with a child requires the victim to be a child.

As a result of the ruling in Alpin, the majority in the instant case concluded that attempted sexual misconduct with a minor also requires the intended victim be a child. They noted that if the General Assembly wanted to penalize defendants for attempting to commit the offense when the victim is actually an adult the defendant believed to be a minor, it could have chosen similar language as used in the child solicitation statute, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

Judge Melissa May dissented, finding the attempt statute to be applicable in this case, which provides that impossibility is not a defense. Gibbs intended to have sex with a minor and did all he could to complete the offense, but failed because it wasn't possible under the circumstances since he was part of an online sting operation, wrote the judge. Judge May doesn't believe the General Assembly would have intended to prevent prosecution under the sexual misconduct with a minor statute when the defendant erroneously believed the victim was a minor. She would affirm Gibbs' convictions, finding sufficient facts to support each of them.

Judge May also noted that the Supreme Court's denial of transfer has no precedential value or legal effect other than to terminate the litigation between the parties and doesn't imply the high court's agreement with the Court of Appeals in a ruling.

ADVERTISEMENT

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. Contact Lea Shelemey attorney in porter county Indiana. She just helped us win our case...she is awesome...

  2. We won!!!! It was a long expensive battle but we did it. I just wanted people to know it is possible. And if someone can point me I. The right direction to help change the way the courts look as grandparents as only grandparents. The courts assume the parent does what is in the best interest of the child...and the court is wrong. A lot of the time it is spite and vindictiveness that separates grandparents and grandchildren. It should not have been this long and hard and expensive...Something needs to change...

  3. Typo on # of Indiana counties

  4. The Supreme Court is very proud that they are Giving a billion dollar public company from Texas who owns Odyssey a statewide monopoly which consultants have said is not unnecessary but worse they have already cost Hoosiers well over $100 MILLION, costing tens of millions every year and Odyssey is still not connected statewide which is in violation of state law. The Supreme Court is using taxpayer money and Odyssey to compete against a Hoosier company who has the only system in Indiana that is connected statewide and still has 40 of the 82 counties despite the massive spending and unnecessary attacks

  5. Here's a recent resource regarding steps that should be taken for removal from the IN sex offender registry. I haven't found anything as comprehensive as of yet. Hopefully this is helpful - http://www.chjrlaw.com/removal-indiana-sex-offender-registry/

ADVERTISEMENT