Paul D. Mobley v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 241
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- On March 6, 2012 Detective Tabatha McLemore was conducting an undercover prostitution sting on East Washington Street in Indianapolis.
- Paul D. Mobley drove slowly past, stared at the detective, then stopped nearby and asked "How much?"
- Detective McLemore replied "twenty for some head;" Mobley nodded "yes" and signaled for her to get into his car; he later said "never mind" when another detective approached and was arrested.
- Mobley was charged and convicted after a bench trial of Class A misdemeanor patronizing a prostitute (agreeing to pay for fellatio).
- On appeal Mobley contended (1) insufficient evidence that he knowingly agreed to pay for sex and (2) alternatively that he was entrapped by police.
- The Court affirmed, finding the evidence sufficient to prove agreement to pay U.S. currency for fellatio and that the State disproved inducement under the entrapment statute.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: Did Mobley knowingly agree to pay for sex? | State: Nodding, verbal exchange, and conduct show knowing agreement. | Mobley: A head nod is ambiguous; "twenty" wasn’t shown to mean dollars; "head" could be ambiguous. | Conviction affirmed — reasonable factfinder could infer agreement to pay $20 for fellatio. |
| Sufficiency: Did "twenty" mean U.S. currency? | State: Context supports inference of $20. | Mobley: "Twenty" without "dollars" is ambiguous. | Held for State — circumstantial context supports $20 in currency. |
| Sufficiency: Did Mobley understand "head" meant fellatio? | State: Undercover officer testified "head" is street term for fellatio and solicitors use it. | Mobley: Could have meant something else or lacked clarity. | Held for State — reasonable to infer Mobley understood the meaning. |
| Entrapment: Did police induce the offense? | State: Undercover simply afforded opportunity; Mobley initiated and showed predisposition. | Mobley: Police conduct induced him to commit the offense. | Held for State — evidence showed no persuasive inducement; entrapment defense failed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review; do not reweigh evidence)
- Hoskins v. State, 563 N.E.2d 571 (Ind. 1990) (entrainment is an affirmative defense that admits the facts of the crime)
- Albaugh v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1233 (Ind. 1999) (entrapment where officer gave a directive creating coercive pressure)
- Ferge v. State, 764 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (discusses entrapment and State's burden to rebut)
- Lukas v. State, 330 N.E.2d 767 (Ind. Ct. App. 1975) (discussing interpretation of head nods as equivocal or affirmative)