State of Indiana v. Sameer Girish Thakar
2017 Ind. App. LEXIS 59
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- State charged Sameer Thakar with Class D felony (now Level 6) dissemination of matter harmful to minors for electronically sending a photo of his erect penis to L.S., a 16‑year‑old in Oregon. The information alleged Thakar knew her age.
- Thakar moved to dismiss, arguing the dissemination statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied to sending sexual, non‑obscene images to 16‑ or 17‑year‑olds.
- Trial court dismissed the information, relying on this court’s precedent in Salter v. State, which held the statute vague in similar circumstances.
- State appealed, asserting Salter was wrong and arguing the Oregon age‑of‑consent (18) and policy reasons support upholding the statute.
- The court reaffirmed Salter: because Indiana law sets age of consent at 16, the statute fails to give fair notice that sending non‑obscene sexual images to a 16‑ or 17‑year‑old is criminal and is therefore vague as applied; dismissal affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana's dissemination‑of‑matter‑harmful‑to‑minors statutes are unconstitutionally vague as applied to an adult sending sexual, non‑obscene images to a 16‑ or 17‑year‑old | Thakar: statute is vague as applied; Indiana law permits consensual sexual activity at 16, so reasonable persons lack fair notice that sending such images is criminal | State: Salter should be overruled; legislature could and should be understood to prohibit dissemination even if in‑person sex at 16 is not criminal; Oregon’s age‑of‑consent (18) makes case distinct | Court: Affirmed Salter — statute is vague and ambiguous as applied to adults transmitting sexual, non‑obscene images to 16‑ or 17‑year‑olds; prosecution dismissed |
Key Cases Cited
- Salter v. State, 906 N.E.2d 212 (Ind. Ct. App.) (holding dissemination statute vague as applied to adult sending genital images to a 16‑year‑old)
- State v. Davis, 898 N.E.2d 281 (Ind. 2008) (explaining statutory grounds for dismissal of indictments and inherent power to dismiss to protect constitutional rights)
- Morgan v. State, 22 N.E.3d 570 (Ind. 2014) (stating constitutional challenges to statutes reviewed de novo)
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (void‑for‑vagueness principles and burden on challenger)
- Day v. State, 57 N.E.3d 809 (Ind. 2016) (ambiguity in penal statutes invokes rule of lenity)