T.G. v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 35
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- T.G. is an eleven-year-old boy living with his mother, who runs a daycare at home.
- During August 2012, T.G. and his sisters stayed home with the daycare children, including six-year-old T.A.G.
- T.G. repeatedly touched T.A.G.’s genitals and her underwear, while his mother and her boyfriend were in the room but did not see the acts.
- T.G. previously kissed T.A.G. and told her to touch his private parts; T.M. learned of the kissing and informed the mother’s boyfriend.
- Detective Lawrence interviewed T.G., who minimized some conduct and claimed T.A.G. asked him to touch her; the State charged T.G. in juvenile court.
- The trial court found true on an act that would be class C felony child molesting if committed by an adult; T.G. appeals on sufficiency and vagueness challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support true finding | T.G. argues the evidence fails to show intentional touching. | State contends circumstantial and direct evidence supports intent to arouse. | Evidence supports intent; sufficient to sustain the true finding. |
| Constitutionality/vagueness of child molesting statute as applied | Statute lacks notice and invites arbitrary enforcement for an eleven-year-old. | Circumstantial evidence and conduct provide sufficient notice and standard for intent. | Statute not void for vagueness; adjudication affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- D.W. v. State, 903 N.E.2d 966 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (uncorroborated witness may suffice for delinquency ruling)
- Bowles v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1150 (Ind. 2000) (intent to arouse may be inferred from touching and conduct)
- Spann v. State, 850 N.E.2d 411 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (intent to arouse may be inferred; adult context discussed)
- W.C.B. v. State, 855 N.E.2d 1057 (Ind. Ct. App. 2006) (age differential and criminal liability considerations)
- State v. J.D., 701 N.E.2d 908 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (age-based considerations in child molestation)
- J.H. v. State, 655 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (reversal of delinquency for certain touching without clear intent)
- DeBruhl v. State, 544 N.E.2d 542 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (intent element may be inferred from conduct)
- C.D.H. v. State, 860 N.E.2d 608 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (purpose of molestation statute; safeguards against naivety)