ILNews

Man gets 10 years for human trafficking

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The first person convicted of human trafficking in Marion County has received 10 years on the charge.

Chris Smiley was convicted in January of human trafficking, felony battery, felony intimidation, and felony strangulation. He was also convicted of promoting prostitution, which was merged with the human trafficking count because the elements fit in with that charge, according to the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office. The charge of human trafficking involved a woman who was forced into prostitution as a result of someone else’s drug debt.

Smiley was also sentenced to four years on the battery conviction, four years on the intimidation conviction, and 545 days on the strangulation conviction. The sentences will run concurrently. He will also serve five years on a possession of cocaine conviction that will run consecutively.

ADVERTISEMENT

  • YOU DESERVE IT
    I was involved in this case and i just want to set things strait the call was for me i had been raped and called the police but i had nothing to do with the girl who was tortured i just feel so good that justice has been served he deserved what he got and really it should be sooner no one would have known she was there if it was not for me when i called the police did not even know the hid her under the bed thank me my life is ruined because of something i could not control but on,y god knows the truth and even tho your in jail smiley remember you have GOD to answer to when its all over your a horrible person who had nothing but guns and drugs in your future your where you were going to end up eventually but to the detectives on this case please find my rapist and put him home with smiley!!

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT