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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT