Ronald Rexroat v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 157
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Rexroat was convicted after a jury trial of two counts of child molesting, Class C felonies.
- The charges were two identically worded counts arising from two separate incidents involving the same child.
- The child, S.L., testified to two separate molestation incidents at different times and locations.
- One incident occurred in a truck behind a home and another at a storage facility.
- Rexroat was sentenced to six years on each count, to be served concurrently, with three years suspended to probation.
- A probation condition barred contact with anyone under 18 unless approved by probation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy of identically worded counts | Rexroat argues counts are same offense under Blockburger | Rexroat argues same act cannot yield two offenses | No; different incidents and distinct acts allow separate offenses under Indiana law |
| Probation condition restricting contact with minors | Condition is not overbroad | Condition overly intrusive on First Amendment rights | Condition upheld as reasonably related to rehabilitation and public safety |
Key Cases Cited
- Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 ((U.S. 1932)) (same-elements test for multiple offenses under federal law)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 ((Ind. 1999)) (two-pronged same-offense test for Indiana double jeopardy)
- Pontius v. State, 930 N.E.2d 1212 ((Ind. Ct. App. 2010)) (actual-evidence test refinement under Indiana double jeopardy)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 ((Ind. 2008)) (statutory elements and actual evidence tests in Indiana)
- Smith v. State, 727 N.E.2d 763 ((Ind. Ct. App. 2000)) (probation conditions restricting contact with minors upheld)
- Peckinpaugh v. State, 743 N.E.2d 1238 ((Ind. Ct. App. 2001)) (multiple counts may arise from separate acts; elements test not applicable)
- Brown v. State, 459 N.E.2d 376 ((Ind. 1984)) (multiple offenses from similar acts may be charged separately)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 ((Ind. 2002)) (clarifies application of the actual-evidence test)