Legislators to look at sex offenses, reporting laws in wake of Anthony trial

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Criminal Code Evaluation Commission is meeting Thursday morning to discuss sex crimes and sex offenders, and other issues, according to its revised meeting agenda. Later that day, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee is going to take a look at Indiana’s laws regarding reporting a dead body or missing child.

The focus of the criminal code meeting is on sex crimes. Dr. Adam Deming will give a presentation on sex crimes and sex offenders, the Office of the Indiana Attorney General will give a presentation on sex trafficking; and Deborah Daniels, former U.S. Attorney and now a partner at Krieg DeVault in Indianapolis, will speak on penalties for sex offenses. Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, and Sen. Randall Head, R-Logansport, will also give presentations at the meeting, according to the posted agenda.

Members will also discuss Indiana Code 35-43-4-3(d), conversion for failure to return a rental car. The meeting begins at 10:30 a.m. in Room 431 of the Statehouse.

At 1:30 p.m. in Room 431, the Criminal Law and Sentencing Policy Study Committee will review Indiana’s laws on reporting dead bodies. Chair Sen. Brent Steele, R-Bedford, said the discussion was spurred by the outcome of the Casey Anthony trial in Florida.

Anthony never reported her daughter missing and was later charged with first-degree murder after her daughter’s remains were discovered. She was acquitted of murder.

Currently, statute requires someone who discovers a dead body to report it within three hours or face a Class A misdemeanor charge with a possible prison sentence of up to a year and a fine that could be as much as $5,000.

Committee members will also look at possibly creating a law that parents or guardians must report a missing child immediately or within a certain time frame. The committee will also talk about implementing a new centralized child protection registry.

The proceedings will also be webcast live.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?