Steven M. Sandleben v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 606
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Sandleben was convicted after a bench trial of three counts of public voyeurism stemming from prior incidents involving two twelve-year-old girls and a four-year-old in Evansville, with one misdemeanor and two felonies charged as related to online posting.
- During August 12, 2013 events, Stephanie Newton observed Sandleben position himself near her four-year-old daughter and place his hand under the girl’s skort; he then left with what appeared to be a cell phone and was identified by Newton and later by a show-up.
- Police found extensive digital evidence at Sandleben’s apartment, including a pocket camera, SD cards, and hard drives containing videos of the two twelve-year-old victims; some videos depicted the pubic area while underwater.
- Forensic analysis linked the videos to Sandleben’s online identity “siterock,” tying the material to his TheCandidForum postings and confirming the source of the videos.
- A Time Warner Cable record of subscriber information was introduced to corroborate the siterock connection, though the trial court later deemed admission of that record to be harmless in light of other evidence.
- The court sentenced Sandleben to three concurrent years for the felonies and one concurrent year for the misdemeanor counts, totaling four years, with some time served in different facilities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for public voyeurism | Sandleben attempted to view and record private areas; evidence supports intent and action. | He did not film private areas; the conduct involved bathing suits and skorts, not private areas. | Evidence supports attempted public voyeurism for E.N., H.W., and L.N. |
| Public voyeurism statute vagueness as applied | Statute sufficiently defines private area and prohibited conduct; applied to actions here. | Notice is lacking since bathing suits/skorts are not private areas; enforcement arbitrary. | Statute applied constitutionally; ordinary understanding informs proscribed conduct. |
| Admission of Time Warner records | Baumholser properly authenticated business records establishing routine record-keeping. | Baumholser lacked custodial knowledge and proper foundation to sponsor the record. | Trial court erred in admitting the record, but error was harmless due to other evidence. |
| Sentencing discretion | Court properly weighs aggravators and mitigators given three victims and multiple incidents. | Court abused discretion by misapplying mitigators and misweighting factors. | No abuse; sentence supported by record and weighs aggravating factors appropriately. |
| Overall sentence appropriateness | Nature and extent of offenses justify the sentence given the victims’ ages. | Sentence is excessive given lack of prior record and remorse. | Sentence not inappropriate under Rule 7(B); deference to trial court affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Delagrange v. State, 5 N.E.3d 354 (Ind. 2014) (upskirt photos show intent to capture naked areas; informs voyeurism scope)
- Kaur v. State, 987 N.E.2d 164 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (void-for-vagueness standard and ordinary understanding controls)
- Embrey v. State, 989 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (business records admissibility framework for routine records)
- Pillow v. State, 986 N.E.2d 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (sufficiency review standard—probative evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (requirement of a detailed sentencing statement; abuse of discretion framework)