961 N.E.2d 529
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Wallace was charged with Class D felony voyeurism and other counts stemming from recording a sexual encounter with A.J. in 2009.
- A.J. was an inmate in Gibson County Jail; Wallace visited her offering potential legal representation and discussed fees.
- Wallace proposed withholding release or expediting release in exchange for sexual intercourse after A.J.’s release.
- A.J. was released September 4, 2009; Wallace and A.J. met, and she engaged in sex with Wallace at an apartment after meeting at a park.
- A.J. did not consent to Wallace recording the encounter; Wallace allegedly started the camera before A.J. entered and left it running.
- In 2010–2011, police obtained search warrants, recovered recordings and other materials, including child pornography, leading to indictments and multiple pretrial motions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do alleged recording acts constitute voyeurism? | Wallace argues the facts do not meet voyeurism. | State contends the facts could support a clandestine recording and peeping under the statute. | Yes, could support a Class D felony voyeurism. |
| Does consent to sexual intercourse defeat recording-based voyeurism? | A.J. consented to sex, implying consent to being seen during sex. | Consent to sex does not necessarily consent to recording or peeping. | Consent to sex does not negate possible voyeurism; recording could be peeping. |
Key Cases Cited
- Chiszar v. State, 936 N.E.2d 816 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (consent central to voyeurism; secretive looking prohibited)
- Bilbrey v. State, 743 N.E.2d 796 (Ind. Ct. App. 2001) (motion to dismiss uses true-when-pled facts standard)
- Isaacs v. State, 794 N.E.2d 1120 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (pre-trial motion scope limits evidence considerations)
- Delagrange v. State, 951 N.E.2d 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard on dismissal motions)