Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed David S. Delagrange’s convictions for attempted child exploitation. The court held that the State was not required to prove that the recorded images actually depicted uncovered genitals because the charges involved attempt, and it concluded that circumstantial evidence supported the jury’s finding that Delagrange took a substantial step toward producing prohibited images.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for attempted child exploitation when the captured images did not depict the children's uncovered genitals.
- Whether the jury could reasonably infer from Delagrange's conduct and statements that he intended to capture images of uncovered genitals, thereby taking a substantial step toward child exploitation.
Holdings
- Because Delagrange was charged with attempt, the State was not required to prove that he successfully captured images of uncovered genitals; it had to prove that, while acting with the required culpability, he engaged in conduct constituting a substantial step toward committing child exploitation.
- The evidence was sufficient because the jury could reasonably infer from Delagrange's concealed shoe-camera method, his conduct in taking upskirt photographs, his testimony about fetish photography, and his statements concerning what was under the victims' skirts that he intended to capture images of uncovered genitals.
Key quotations
“Thus, the State need not show Delagrange actually succeeded in capturing images of uncovered genitals; rather, it must show that he took a “substantial step” toward doing so.” (5 N.E.3d at 357)
“can a jury infer that someone taking “upskirt” photographs of women and girls by means of a concealed shoe camera does so in the hope that some of them will not be wearing undergarments? We say yes.” (5 N.E.3d at 358)
“The former is legal; the latter is not.” (5 N.E.3d at 359)
Factual background
Delagrange traveled to a shopping mall and used a concealed camera attached to his shoe to record images under the skirts of women and girls. The recordings included four girls, three aged seventeen and one aged fifteen, but did not show uncovered genitals. Delagrange was charged with attempted child exploitation because the recordings were alleged to constitute a substantial step toward producing images involving sexual conduct by children.
Procedural history
The Marion Superior Court denied Delagrange's motion to dismiss the attempted child exploitation charges and, after trial, the jury convicted him on four attempted child exploitation counts and one resisting-law-enforcement count. The Indiana Court of Appeals initially affirmed the denial of the motion to dismiss, but a divided panel later reversed the four attempted child exploitation convictions on sufficiency grounds. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court.