Summary
The Supreme Court of Indiana held that a conviction for child molesting under Indiana Code section 35-42-4-3(b) may be based on knowingly or intentionally fondling or touching a child with the intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires. The court rejected the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the touching must be intentional, reasoning that the statute does not require a specific mental culpability for the touching element and that knowing conduct is sufficient. The court affirmed the conviction and summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals' disposition of the sentencing issue.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Indiana's child-molesting statute requires the State to prove that the defendant knowingly or intentionally performed the fondling or touching.
- Whether the trial court committed fundamental error by instructing the jury that it could convict if it found that Louallen knowingly or intentionally performed the fondling or touching.
- Whether Louallen's sentence should be disturbed on appeal.
Holdings
- Indiana Code section 35-42-4-3(b) does not require the fondling or touching element to be performed intentionally. It is sufficient that the jury find that the defendant knowingly performed the alleged fondling or touching, together with the required intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.
- The trial court did not err by instructing the jury that Louallen could be convicted for 'knowingly or intentionally' fondling or touching a child with the intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.
- Louallen waived ordinary appellate review of the jury instruction by failing to object at trial, although the court addressed the issue as fundamental error because the Court of Appeals had done so.
Key quotations
“It is sufficient that a jury find that a defendant "knowingly" performed the alleged fondling or touching in order to convict.” (778 N.E.2d at 797)
“The trial court did not err when it instructed the jury that the defendant could be convicted under Ind.Code § 35-42-4-3(b) for "knowingly or intentionally" fondling or touching a child with intent to arouse or gratify himself or the child.” (778 N.E.2d at 798)
Factual background
During a fishing trip, Louallen was alone with a twelve-year-old girl and rubbed her private area, moved his hand up her chest, nibbled on her chest, attempted to kiss her, and tried to pull down her pants. The child resisted and reported the conduct to her mother. When police arrived, Louallen appeared intoxicated. He was charged with and convicted of child molesting.
Procedural history
Louallen was convicted of child molesting and sentenced to six years. The Indiana Court of Appeals concluded that the instruction was erroneous because it permitted conviction based on knowing rather than intentional conduct, but found no fundamental error because the evidence made it unlikely that the jury relied on the knowing standard. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, rejected the Court of Appeals' statutory interpretation regarding mens rea, summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals on the sentencing issue, and affirmed the trial court's judgment.