ILNews

Sexual misconduct may not be abusive

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated today a man's sentence following a guilty plea on a child pornography charge because it was unsure whether his previous conviction in Indiana for sexual misconduct with a minor should be considered abusive and allow for his minimum sentence to be increased.

In United States of America v. Sean Osborne, No. 08-1176, Sean Osborne pleaded guilty to possessing and distributing child pornography in violation of 18 U.S.C. Section 2252(a). Under that section, a defendant with a previous conviction in any state relating to aggravated sexual abuse, sexual abuse, or abusive sexual misconduct with a minor or ward would have an increased minimum sentence of 15 years. Osborne was convicted in 2002 of violating Indiana Code Section 35-42-4-9(b), which makes it a crime for someone 18 or older to fondle or touch someone age 14 or 15 with intent to arouse the sexual desires of the child or adult.

The question in this case is whether Osborne's sexual misconduct in the 2002 case was abusive. The District Court ruled every conviction under that state statute arises from abusive sexual conduct and sentenced him to the 15-year minimum.

The federal statute section doesn't define what is abusive nor has any appellate court addressed what makes sexual conduct involving a minor abusive. Interpreting that any offense out of sexual conduct with a minor is abusive would make the use of the word unnecessary in the statute, wrote Judge Frank Easterbrook.

Under I.C. Section 35-42-4-9(b), it's possible for an 18-year-old high school student to be convicted for sexual contact with his or her 15-year-old significant other that may be considered typical behavior for high school students in a relationship.

"Exploratory touching between students in high school is not a form of 'abusive' sexual contact, as that word is ordinarily understood," wrote the judge.

Because of the lack of a definition of abusive under federal Section 2252, the 7th Circuit ruled it's best to say as a matter of federal law that sexual behavior is abusive only if it is similar to one of the crimes denominated as a form of abuse elsewhere in Title 18.

Unless the charging papers can show Osborne has been convicted of violating the Indiana Code in a way that shows abusive sexual behavior, the District Court must treat his 2002 conviction as non-abusive because the elements of the statute permit a conviction for many kinds of conduct that federal law doesn't consider abusive, wrote Judge Easterbrook.

The federal appellate court remanded the case for further proceedings.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT