ILNews

Justices to review teacher’s explicit messages to student

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Starke County teacher who was charged with sending sexually explicit Facebook messages to a 16-year-old student will have to face the Indiana Supreme Court, which will review the Court of Appeals’ order to dismiss the counts.

Robert Corbin was charged with two counts of attempted child seduction that were dismissed on appeal by the COA. Judge Paul Mathias wrote for the panel in Robert Corbin v. State of Indiana, 75S03-1401-CR-13, that while Corbin’s behavior toward the student was “deplorable and immoral,” he had not taken the substantial step toward the crime that the statute requires.

Corbin was a teacher and swim coach at Knox High School in northwest Indiana when he sent messages of a sexual nature to the student. A relative discovered the messages and alerted police, who interviewed Corbin. He was charged with two Class D felonies under I.C. 35-41-5-1, 35-42-4-7(k)(1) and 35-42-4-7(k)(2)(A)(ii).

The trial court refused to dismiss the charges in which authorities said Corbin took the substantial step toward the crime by asking the student to sneak out of her house, after which he would pick her up.

Relying on Ward v. State, 528 N.E.2d 52, 55 (Ind. 1988), Mathias wrote, “we are constrained to conclude that Corbin’s Internet-based solicitations ...  did not constitute a substantial step toward the crime of child seduction.”

The Corbin case was one of three granted transfer for the week ending Jan. 10.

Justices also agreed to grant transfer to an appeal in a case where a juror who admitted bias was not struck by the court, and a defense attorney chose not to send the potential juror home with a final peremptory strike.

In Gary Wayne Oswalt v. State of Indiana, 35S02-1401-CR-10, Gary Wayne Oswalt appeals his convictions and 84-year sentence on two charges of Class A felony child molesting, five Class D felony counts of possession of child pornography and Class D felony child seduction.

The court also agreed to hear an appeal of a not-for-publication opinion, Curtis F. Sample, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 45S03-1401-CR-11. Curtis Sample’s convictions of Class A felony attempted murder and Class B felony criminal confinement were previously affirmed by the high court, but his habitual offender finding was remanded for a new hearing.

Sample again was found to be a habitual offender, affirmed by the appeals court which found the trial court didn’t commit reversible error when it allowed prosecution witnesses to testify that a victim of two predicate offenses was mentally infirm.  

The Supreme Court also denied 24 transfer requests. The court transfer disposition list may be viewed here.

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  5. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

ADVERTISEMENT