Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the revocation of Nathaniel Bennett’s community corrections placement based on possession of obscene matter. The court held that the trial court’s sentencing finding that one part of Indiana’s statutory definition of obscene matter was not necessarily satisfied contradicted its finding of a violation and rendered the evidence insufficient. The case was remanded for correction of the record.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the evidence was sufficient to revoke Bennett's community-corrections placement when the trial court expressly stated that one part of the statutory definition of obscene matter was not necessarily met.
- Whether a trial court's later factual finding that negates an element or statutory requirement necessary to establish a violation requires reversal of the revocation.
Holdings
- The evidence was insufficient to revoke Bennett's community-corrections placement for possessing obscene matter because the trial court made a sentencing finding that negated one part of the statutory definition required to establish the violation.
- When a trial court makes a finding at sentencing that contradicts its judgment by negating an element or statutory definition necessary to prove a violation, reversal is required.
Key quotations
“Although Kribs was not a probation matter and involved mens rea while this case does not, the same logic applies here.” (at 4)
“But under the circumstances, we cannot say the evidence is sufficient to revoke Bennett’s probation for possession of obscene matter.” (at 5)
Factual background
Bennett was placed in community corrections subject to a condition prohibiting possession of obscene matter as defined by Indiana Code section 35-49-2-1. During a compliance check, officers found a cell phone containing photographs of Bennett, a naked woman, and videos depicting a man and woman engaging in sexual intercourse. Although the trial court initially found by a preponderance of the evidence that Bennett knowingly possessed the phone and its contents, it later stated at sentencing that it did not find that the statutory requirement concerning depiction or description of sexual conduct in a patently offensive way was necessarily met.
Procedural history
Bennett pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony sexual misconduct with a minor and received a seven-year community-corrections sentence, with three years suspended to sex-offender probation. After officers found sexually explicit photographs and videos on his phone, the State alleged a community-corrections violation. The trial court revoked the community-corrections portion of his sentence and ordered four years in the Department of Correction. The Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Supreme Court granted transfer, reversed, and remanded for correction of the record.
Remand instructions
Reverse the trial court's finding that Bennett violated a term of his community-corrections placement and remand for the trial court to change the record accordingly.