David Delagrange v. State of Indiana
981 N.E.2d 1227
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Delagrange recorded images beneath skirts at a mall using a shoe-mounted camera; four victims were minors.
- He was charged with four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation, ten counts of Class D felony voyeurism, and a Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
- The voyeurism statute in effect at the time addressed peeping into areas where disrobing could occur; public voyeurism was later added by amendment in 2011.
- The child exploitation statute requires knowingly or intentionally producing or creating a digitized image of any performance or incident that includes sexual conduct by a child under eighteen.
- The trial court denied Delagrange’s motion for a directed verdict; the jury found him guilty on the four attempted child exploitation counts and the resisting law enforcement count.
- The appellate court remanded to address whether the State proved the element of ‘sexual conduct by a child’ as required by the statute in force when the acts occurred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the State prove the elements of attempted child exploitation? | State contends the charging information and evidence fit the statute's elements. | Delagrange asserts no evidence showed a child exhibited genitals or intended to satisfy sexual desires. | Reversed and remanded; insufficient evidence to support attempted child exploitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Edwards v. State, 862 N.E.2d 1254 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (directed verdict standard and sufficiency review guidance)
- City of Carmel v. Steele, 865 N.E.2d 612 (Ind. 2007) (statutory interpretation of criminal provisions)
- Small v. Centocor, Inc., 731 N.E.2d 22 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (res judicata and claim preclusion principles)
- Delagrange I, 951 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (earlier interpretation of sexual conduct and attempted child exploitation)
- Indiana-Kentucky Electric Corp. v. Save the Valley, Inc., 953 N.E.2d 511 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (law-of-the-case doctrine and extraordinary-circumstances consideration)
- State v. Bilbrey, 743 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (different standard for motion to dismiss vs. directed verdict)