ILNews

Justices discuss jury unanimity in molestation cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court addressed the issue of unanimous jury verdicts in child molesting cases Thursday, and adopted reasoning from the California Supreme Court when dealing with the “either/or” rule in cases where multiple instances are mentioned but the defendant faces only one charge.

Elmer Baker was convicted of three counts of child molesting with two of his victims being relatives and one the friend of a victim. He challenged his convictions on several grounds, but the only issue the Supreme Court took up in Elmer D. Baker v. State of Indiana, No. 17S04-1009-CR-500, was Baker’s challenge that his convictions aren’t sustained by evidence of jury unanimity. The justices summarily affirmed the Indiana Court of Appeals opinion in all other respects.

The victims testified at trial of multiple acts, but Baker was only convicted of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

The justices delved into issues surrounding unanimous verdicts and child molesting cases, noting in general, the precise time and date of the commission of a child molestation offense isn’t regarded as a material element of the crime. Writing for the court, Justice Robert Rucker pointed out that depending on the facts, applying the rule of jury unanimity can present challenges in charges of child molestation.

The justices then went on to give a few scenarios in which this issue arises, including when a young child is abused so frequently that they lose any reference of time and give generic testimony, such as the molestation occurred every time the parent went to the store. Several jurisdictions have enacted criminal statutes that don’t require evidence of particular incidents for prosecution, yet Indiana has not. The justices encouraged the General Assembly to consider adopting a statute criminalizing an ongoing pattern of sexual abuse when the victim is unable to reconstruct the specific circumstances of any one incident.

Jury unanimity is also at issue when, as in the case of Baker, evidence is presented of a greater number of separate criminal offenses than the defendant is charged with. The “either/or” rule is the procedure most commonly followed to balance the need to prosecute these types of cases.

“That is to say, the defendant is entitled either to an election by the State of the single act upon which it is relying for a conviction or to a specific unanimity instruction,” wrote Justice Rucker.

The Indiana justices decided to adopt the California Supreme Court’s adoption of the either/or rule, and held that the state may in its discretion designate a specific act or acts on which it relies to prove a particular charge. If the state decides not to so designate, then the jurors should be instructed that in order to convict the defendant they must either unanimously agree that the defendant committed the same act or acts or that the defendant committed all of the acts described by the victim and included within the time period charged.

The state didn’t do so in Baker’s case, but it wasn’t compelled to do so. In addition, Baker never objected to the trial court’s instruction nor offered an instruction of his own, so the issue is waived, the justices ruled. They held Baker didn’t demonstrate that the instruction error was so prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial.
 

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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT