David S. Delagrange v. State of Indiana, 2014 Ind. LEXIS 230

On Feb. 27, 2010, David Delagrange traveled to an Indianapolis mall and spent ~8 hours attempting to take concealed "upskirt" videos of shoppers using a camera sewn into his shoe.
Police arrested him after store employees reported suspicious conduct; detectives later identified four juvenile female victims (three age 17, one age 15) in the footage showing the area under skirts but no exposed genitals.
The State charged attempted child exploitation (four counts), additional voyeurism counts (later dismissed by agreement), and resisting law enforcement; a jury convicted Delagrange on five remaining counts.
On appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the attempted child exploitation convictions, holding the statute required evidence the child was exhibiting uncovered genitals to satisfy sexual desire; a dissent criticized that reading.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for attempted child exploitation, focusing on whether substantial-step intent could be inferred despite lack of images of uncovered genitals.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for attempted child exploitation	State: intent to capture sexual conduct can be inferred from conduct and circumstantial evidence; need only a substantial step toward producing prohibited images	Delagrange: no images show "sexual conduct" (uncovered genitals), victims were clothed and weather made exposure unlikely, so evidence insufficient	Affirmed: attempt requires a substantial step; intent may be inferred from conduct and surrounding circumstances, so evidence was sufficient

Saxton v. State, 790 N.E.2d 98 (Ind. 2003) (circumstantial inferences can prove intent and lack of permission in voyeurism-type facts)
Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2000) (intent may be proved by circumstantial evidence and inferred from conduct)
Lock v. State, 971 N.E.2d 71 (Ind. 2012) (standard of review for sufficiency: do not reweigh evidence or reassess credibility)
Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (appellate sufficiency standard: consider evidence most favorable to verdict)
Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 2000) (same sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard)