ILNews

Nicknames properly admitted in sex with minor convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Nicknames and aliases a defendant used were relevant to the charges he faced, the Court of Appeals ruled Tuesday in affirming felony convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor.

In Audie Wilson v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1210-CR-846, the panel affirmed convictions of Class B felony and Class C felony counts of sexual misconduct with a minor and Class B felony attempted sexual misconduct with a minor.

The court rejected appellate arguments that nicknames or aliases used by Wilson were improperly admitted. Wilson was convicted of acts against a 15-year-old boy who he had previously picked up in his van and paid small sums to help him wash cars.

"Wilson testified during direct examination as to his use of the nickname 'Mike,' thus opening the door to questioning during cross-examination as to his use of other nicknames. Further, none of the nicknames explored by the State carry any implication of wrongdoing,” Judge Mark Bailey wrote for the panel. “Therefore, the use of nicknames here does not create a connotation of criminality sufficient to thwart the fairness of a trial.”
 
Likewise, the panel rejected Wilson’s claim that the jury was improperly instructed with regard to Wilson’s defense that he had a reasonable belief that the victim was older than 16. The record showed that Wilson had knowledge that the victim was 15, Bailey wrote, so an instruction given the jury regarding the defense was not fundamental error.


 

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. 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