ILNews

Man's conviction hinges on 'induce' definition

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals had to determine how to interpret the term “induce” related to a man’s contributing to the delinquency of a minor case and upheld his conviction based on the term’s dictionary definition.

In Thomas Temple v. State of Indiana, No. 27A05-1101-CR-31, Thomas Temple challenged his conviction of Class A misdemeanor contributing to the delinquency of a minor. The state alleged that Temple knowingly induced his 15-year-old neighbor to leave her house. Temple and his neighbor had been exchanging text messages planning for A.H. to leave her house and “hook up” with him. Her parents became suspicious and didn’t let her leave the house that night.

Temple moved for judgment on the evidence based on the fact that A.H. never actually left her home. His motion was denied and he was found guilty.

The judges focused on the term “induce” that the state used in the charging information. Temple believed that induce required that A.H. actually left her house; the state claimed the term is more akin to the word “encourage,” and is satisfied when the defendant acts to persuade a minor to commit a delinquent act, regardless of whether the minor actually completes the alleged conduct.

There isn’t a case that specifically defines “induce,” so the judges looked at Black’s Law Dictionary’s definition of “inducement:” the “act or process of enticing or persuading another person to take a certain course of action.”

“A common understanding of ‘entice’ and ‘persuade’ suggests that a person need not do anything but influence another’s mind or beliefs to have committed ‘inducement,’” wrote Judge Cale Bradford. “Temple’s restrictive interpretation of ‘induce’ appears counter to this relatively broad definition.”

The judges also cited Dorn v. State, 819 N.E.2d 516, 520 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), in which “entice” was interpreted in the promoting prostitution statute as not requiring some form of completed act, to affirm Temple’s conviction.

Judge Bradford noted that the statute under which Temple was charged criminalizes the mere act of “encouraging,” which suggests that the General Assembly intended to criminalize conduct regardless of whether it resulted in a completed act.

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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT