Oscar Flores v. State of Indiana, 114 N.E.3d 522

Defendant Oscar Flores, uncle by marriage, was charged with two counts of Level 4 child molesting for separate acts (fondling and touching) against his 12‑year‑old niece, C.G., during a single nighttime incident.
Victim woke while sleeping, found her pants/underwear pulled down in the back, felt Flores’ penis between her buttocks and fingers touching her vagina over her underwear.
State charged two counts under Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b): one for fondling and one for touching with intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires.
At trial the State characterized the conduct as a single “event” involving both touching and fondling; a jury convicted Flores on both counts.
Flores appealed, arguing the continuous‑crime doctrine bars multiple convictions for closely connected acts that constitute a single uninterrupted transaction.
The Court of Appeals agreed, reversing in part and remanding with instructions to vacate one conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether two convictions for touching and fondling during the same encounter violate the continuous‑crime doctrine	State treated the acts as separate crimes and argued convictions are proper	Flores argued the acts were part of a single continuous transaction and only one chargeable crime	Court held the acts were closely connected in time, place, and continuity of action and therefore constitute a single transaction; one conviction must be vacated

Chavez v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1226 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (acts committed during a single encounter closely connected in time/place/continuity constitute one chargeable child‑molesting transaction)
Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (articulates and limits the continuous‑crime doctrine to situations where multiple charges actually constitute one continuous offense)