ILNews

Judges uphold 54-year sentence of man who asked women to take pics of kids

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a man’s argument Friday that he couldn’t be convicted of Class A felony child molesting under the accessory statute because the perpetrator was under 21 at the time of the molestations.

Ryan Schroeder, 24, began a relationship with Tara Tryon, 19, who agreed to take nude pictures of the children she babysat and send them to Schroeder. She also molested the children at his request and photographed it. Around this time, Schroeder began a relationship with Adrienne Harris, who had a 2-year-old daughter. He asked Harris to send nude photographs of her daughter and touch her inappropriately. Schroder also had a relationship with 16-year-old A.F. and asked her to secretly photograph other women, including her mother.

The State charged Schroeder with five counts of Class A felony child molesting, one count of Class C felony child molesting, seven counts of Class C felony child exploitation, one count of Class D felony theft, seven counts of Class D felony possession of child pornography, and two counts of Class D felony voyeurism.

The child molesting, child exploitation, theft and one of the voyeurism charges were based on his accomplice liability with Tryon as the principal. The other voyeurism charge was based on his accomplice liability with A.F. as the principal. Ultimately, A.F. was not charged for her conduct, and she testified against Schroeder. Harris pleaded guilty in federal court to one count of production of child pornography, and she is serving 25 years in federal prison. She also testified against Schroeder.

He argued that, under the accessory statute, he could only be convicted of a Class B felony because Tryon was under 21 years old. He also argued that Counts 1 through 5 should be dismissed because they violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution and the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment.

He was convicted as charged and sentenced to a total of 54 years, which the judges found to not be inappropriate.

“Schroeder vicariously committed the actual offense of child molesting and, regardless of Tryon’s Class B felony charge, his offense was properly classified as a Class A felony due to his age. We conclude that, to prove Schroeder’s accomplice liability for child molesting, the State was required to show that he was at least twenty-one years old and that he knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused Tryon to perform deviate sexual conduct with A.B., who was less than fourteen years old. The State presented sufficient evidence to meet its burden,” Judge Michael Barnes wrote in Ryan R. Schroeder v. State of Indiana, 64A03-1302-CR-39.
 

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. 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