ILNews

Kissing a sleeping victim doesn't constitute sexual battery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A victim being asleep isn’t equivalent to a mental disability or deficiency for purposes of the sexual battery statute, the Indiana Court of Appeals held Wednesday.

Ronald Ball was convicted of Class D felony sexual battery for kissing and licking Shaun Dozier’s face while she was asleep. Once she awoke, she asked him to stop, and he left her apartment where he had been hanging out. Dozier uses a wheelchair and takes pain medication that can affect her memory, but the state never argued this made her mentally disabled or deficient for purposes of the sexual battery statute.

At issue in the case is whether Dozier’s being asleep at the time of the battery rendered her “so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to the touching cannot be given” requiring Ball to be convicted of Class D felony sexual battery.

No case has considered this issue, so the Court of Appeals turned to the rape and criminal deviate conduct statutes, which also include identical language – the force or threat of force and mental disability or deficiency prongs – that are found in the sexual battery statute.  

But those crimes also include a third prong not in the sexual battery statute: a person may be convicted under the rape or criminal deviate conduct statutes if the victim is unaware the conduct is occurring. Under those statutes, being asleep only has supported a conviction charged under the unawareness prong, not the mentally disabled or deficient prong, wrote Chief Judge Margret Robb in Roland Ball v. State of Indiana, No. 06A01-1007-CR-426.

“The plain meaning of ‘mentally disabled or deficient,’ as well as the facts of the cases in which a victim has been found to be mentally disabled or deficient, would exclude a temporary, natural state such as sleep from inclusion in that phrase. Moreover, the legislature did not include in the sexual battery statute the ‘unawareness’ provision included in other sex offense statutes, and we believe it would be disharmonious to construe ‘mentally disabled or deficient’ to include sleep for purposes of the sexual battery statute when the same phrase does not include sleep for purposes of the other sexual offense statutes,” wrote the chief judge. “We therefore conclude that being asleep does not constitute being mentally disabled or deficient.”

The state failed to prove the element of mental disability or deficiency beyond a reasonable doubt, so the judges reversed Ball’s Class D felony sexual battery conviction. However, the evidence supports entering a judgment against him for Class B misdemeanor battery.

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. 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?

  2. 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?

  3. 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.

  4. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  5. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

ADVERTISEMENT