Albert Towne v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A04-1511-CR-1854
| Ind. Ct. App. | Dec 1, 2016Background
- Defendant Albert Towne (26 at time) was charged with sexual misconduct with a minor: one Class B count (sexual intercourse) and two Class C counts (fondling/touching) based on conduct in summer 2013.
- Victim T.S. was born April 30, 1999; the alleged misconduct occurred during June–July 2013 when she visited her father and played with Towne.
- T.S. has intellectual and behavioral disabilities; her mother testified T.S. functioned below chronological age and reported the incident to her mother in February 2014.
- At trial T.S.’s testimony was inconsistent about her exact age at the time (at points stating she was 13), but other uncontroverted evidence showed her birthdate.
- Following a bench trial the court convicted Towne of one Class B and one Class C sexual misconduct count and sentenced him to an aggregate term with partial suspension, home detention, and probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Towne) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that victim was at least 14 at time of offense | Evidence (birthdate, testimony about summer 2013, report in Feb 2014) establishes T.S. was 14 during June–July 2013 | T.S. testified inconsistently and said she was 13, so State failed to prove the 14-year element beyond a reasonable doubt | The court held the evidence was sufficient; factfinder could credit birthdate and circumstantial evidence and resolve inconsistencies in State's favor |
| Alternative relief if age uncertain | N/A | If age were uncertain around statutory cutoff, defendant should not escape conviction; lesser felony charging is appropriate | Court noted precedent allows conviction of the lesser-included class when age is unclear, so convictions stand even under arguendo uncertainty |
Key Cases Cited
- Sandleben v. State, 29 N.E.3d 126 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
- Labarr v. State, 36 N.E.3d 501 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (substantial evidence and reasonable inferences govern sufficiency review)
- Hmurovic v. State, 43 N.E.3d 685 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (circumstantial testimonial evidence can prove victim's age)
- Barger v. State, 587 N.E.2d 1304 (Ind. 1992) (when victim's age is near statutory dividing line, conviction of lesser felony is appropriate)
- K.D. v. State, 754 N.E.2d 36 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (trier of fact resolves testimonial conflicts and assesses witness credibility)