Sloan v. State
2011 Ind. LEXIS 437
| Ind. | 2011Background
- Sloan molested M.A. from age six to thirteen, with last incident in 1991.
- M.A. disclosed abuse to her stepfather in 2007 and to authorities in 2008; Sloan admitted to several acts shortly after.
- Sloan was charged with Class A and Class C felony child molesting; motion to dismiss Class C based on statute of limitations and concealment tolling was denied.
- Court of Appeals reversed the Class C conviction; Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide tolling end and double jeopardy.
- Supreme Court holds tolling ends when prosecuting authority learns sufficient evidence to charge, given concealment; separate facts support Class A and Class C convictions, so no double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| When tolling ends under the concealment statute | State argues tolling ends when evidence becomes known to prosecutors and could not have been discovered with due diligence. | Sloan asserts tolling ends when concealment ceases or coercive acts stop. | Tolling ends when authorities know or should know sufficient evidence to charge. |
| Effect of concealment on charging period for two offenses | State relies on concealment tolling to extend the period for both charges. | Sloan contends the tolling cannot extend indefinitely. | Concealment tolling applies to end once authorities acquire chargeable evidence; applies to both offenses if supported by evidence. |
| Double jeopardy with two child-molesting convictions | Two offenses may be proven by distinct facts; no duplication. | There is a reasonable possibility the same evidentiary facts supported both offenses. | Convictions affirmed; separate, distinct evidentiary facts supported penetration (Class A) and fondling (Class C). |
Key Cases Cited
- Crider v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1151 (Ind. 1988) (concealment tolling ends when prosecuting authority learns sufficient evidence)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (actual-evidence test for double jeopardy)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (proper framework for evaluating duplicative evidentiary facts)
- Davies v. State, 730 N.E.2d 726 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (distinct evidence required for separate offenses)
- Ward v. State, 736 N.E.2d 265 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (fondling not incidental to penetration for double jeopardy purposes)
- Sipe v. State, 797 N.E.2d 336 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (confronts concealment analysis under tolling statutes)