Delagrange v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1317
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Defendant Delagrange was charged in Indiana with four counts of attempted child exploitation, ten counts of voyeurism, and one misdemeanor resisting law enforcement after an incident at an Indianapolis mall.
- He attached a shoe camera connected to a recording device and used a fishing line to expose the camera from inside his pant leg to film under skirts or dresses.
- Three of the alleged victims were seventeen and one was fifteen, all wearing skirts or dresses, when Delagrange attempted to photograph under their clothing.
- Delagrange was arrested for resisting law enforcement; review of camera recordings revealed photographs of areas beneath some victims’ skirts/dresses.
- Delagrange moved to dismiss the voyeurism and attempted child exploitation charges; the trial court dismissed voyeurism but denied the four counts of attempted child exploitation.
- The case proceeded on interlocutory appeal from the denial of the motion to dismiss; the appellate court affirmed the trial court’s denial and remanded for further proceedings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the trial court abuse its discretion in denying part of the motion to dismiss? | State contends the information adequately alleges attempt and child exploitation. | Delagrange argues the information fails to allege sexual conduct under the statute. | No abuse; information adequately states an attempted child exploitation offense. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ingram v. State, 760 N.E.2d 615 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (abuse of discretion standard for dismissal; facts in information taken as true)
- State v. Bilbrey, 743 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (facts in information presumed true on motion to dismiss)
- State v. Isaacs, 794 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (pre-trial focus; issues proper for dismissal not defenses or trial merits)
- Stratton v. State, 791 N.E.2d 220 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (dictionary-based interpretation of statutory terms; plain meaning)
- Herron v. State, 729 N.E.2d 1008 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (conduct reprehensible but not criminal unless defined by statute)