Edward Gilliland v. State of Indiana
979 N.E.2d 1049
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Gilliland, LaPorte ISD athletic director, was aware of Ashcraft's alleged inappropriate conduct with KT starting Aug 2007 and documented it in his personnel file.
- Ashcraft resigned/was terminated in Oct 2008 after continuing inappropriate behavior toward KT.
- Indiana State Police investigation (Oct 2010) prompted charging Gilliland with two counts of failure to report child abuse or neglect, based on alleged failures between Aug 2007 and Oct 2008.
- Probable cause hearing (Sept 6, 2011) included testimony that Gilliland knew of the foot/back rubs and related behavior but did not testify to sexual activity.
- Trial court denied Gilliland’s motion to dismiss; court found concealment and due diligence issues unresolved and allowed amendment timing; Gilliland appealed.
- Indiana appellate court held charges timely due to concealment tolling from 2007/2008 until 2010, but no amendment needed for offenses prior to Oct 5, 2007; sufficiency of information upheld.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does concealment toll the statute of limitations? | Gilliland argues concealment did not begin until 2008, so time barred. | State argues concealment from the outset tolled the period until 2010, due to failure to report and related concealment. | Yes; concealment tolled the period starting from the outset. |
| Are the charges timely filed given the tolling period? | If tolling ended earlier, charges could be outside limitations. | Tolling extended to Oct 2010; filing in Sept 2011 was timely. | Charges timely filed. |
| Is the charging information constitutionally sufficient to notify Gilliland of offenses? | Information lacks specific facts tying Gilliland to a reason to believe KT was a victim. | Probable cause hearing and attached materials provide sufficient notice; details may be complemented by testimony. | Charging information, together with probable cause testimony, sufficient to constitute the offenses and notify Gilliland. |
| Should the State amend the information to exclude pre-Oct 5, 2007 offenses? | Certain pre-2007 conduct should be dismissed as outside the statute of limitations. | Amendment unnecessary; the court can proceed with the existing charges. | No amendment required for offenses prior to Oct 5, 2007; timely to proceed on remaining offenses. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (concealment tolling governs timing for misdemeanors)
- State v. Laker, 939 N.E.2d 1111 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (charging information sufficiency and notice standard)
- Reeves v. State, 938 N.E.2d 10 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (fact-intensive concealment analysis in information)
- Delagrange v. State, 951 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (motion to dismiss standard; use of probable cause at issue)
- Estrada v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1032 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (timing and sufficiency considerations in dismissal context)
- In re Brown, 703 N.E.2d 1041 (Ind. 1998) (unwelcome and offensive sexual advances jurisprudence cited on conduct relevance)