*1 hearmg contempt after the ney order nor do s services rendered in connection we find error in the court holding therewith. We therefore affirm the trial hearing. court on this point. Attorney
VI. Fees As request for Wife’s appellate fees, Last, attorney because affirming Husband contends we are the trial finding trial court in “in court’s awarding erred Husband is in excessive contempt Decree, attorneys’ appellate fees to attorney, attorney [Wife’s] be proper fees are figures pursuant cause the include attorney’s Agree fees ment. allegedly on behalf We therefore remand for [Husband’s] without his a calcula tion of knowledge.” Appellant’s appellate consent or reasonable p. attorney Br. fees. 54. Agreement attorney addresses part, Affirmed in reversed in part, and provides: fees and remanded. If either Husband or Wife defaults any terms, BAKER, C.J., BAILEY, J., concur. provisions obligations herein set
forth, and it necessary becomes to insti- legal proceedings
tute to effectuate the provisions of this
Agreement, then party found to be pay default shall all expenses, includ-
ing fees, attorneys reasonable incurred in connection with such enforcement ZITLAW, Appellant- Fredrick A. proceedings. Defendant, Appellee’s App. p. 23. Though difficult to follow, Husband, citing various Rules of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff. STATE of Conduct, Professional appears argue attorney Wife’s should prohibited No. 29A05-0701-CR-35. from receiving attorney fees for her efforts Court of Appeals of Indiana. trying get judgment default on one of the rental properties set aside. Hus- Feb. band reasons because he admitted Rehearing April Denied attorney’s that Wife’s efforts also benefited (because him the default judgment was
apparently against them), entered both of attorney
Wife’s improperly performed ser-
vices on his behalf. Husband’s argument cogent
is not and is therefore waived. 46(A)(8)(a). Appellate
Ind. Rule Waiver
notwithstanding, there is no evidence that attorney
Wife’s acted on Husband’s behalf.
The fact that Husband have received
some incidental benefit from Wife’s attor-
ney’s efforts in getting the judg- default
ment set bearing aside has no pro- on the
priety or amount of the attorney fees
awarded the trial court for Wife’s attor- *2 Carter, Attorney
Steve General Indiana, Whitehead, Deputy Attorney J.T. General, IN, Indianapolis, Attorneys for Appellee.
OPINION SHARPNACK, Judge.
Fredrick A. Zitlaw trial appeals the court’s denial of his motion to dismiss. issues, Zitlaw raises three con- solidate and restate as whether the trial court discretion Zit- by denying abused its lavfs charge per- motion to dismiss his formance harmful to D minors as a class affirm. We The relevant facts follow. On June charged State Zitlaw with formance harmful to minors class felony,1 indecency of public two counts misdemeanor,2 A public nudity class a class B misdemeanor.3 The information for alleged that Zitlaw “did or intentionally engage in or conduct performance, indecency public to-wit: nudity; area which and/or visual, auditory minors have access, park; to-wit: public perform- said being ance Appel- minors.” Appendix lant’s 7. probable at The cause affidavit provided: day May, [Deputy On the 8th County William Clifford Hamilton Department] Sheriffs came into contact with following in the manner: [Zitlaw] [Deputy was working Clifford] in an un- capacity dercover in a park in Hamilton County. followed [Zitlaw] down [him] Schumm, Sweeney, path, Joel M. Kathleen M. path once on the directed [Zitlaw] IN, Indianapolis, Attorneys for Appellant. go down into a dry [him] creek bed. 35-49-3-3(a) (subse- (a) (2004). 2. 1.Ind.Code 35-45-4-1 140-2006, quently amended No. Pub.L. (eff. 2006)). (2004). July Ind.Code 35-45-4-1.5 l, contends first this [Zitlaw] contact During [his] the course [Zitlaw], Count be dismissed for the [Deputy Clifford] observed should and fondle it expose penis his reason that the State Indiana [Zitlaw] get attempting [him] front of has as essential [him] failed ele- sex. oral of the crime names of ments were minors which involved also at 9. cause affidavit probable and also omits in offense present children were excep- Information the Charging day. park that accompa- tion each “unless a motion to dismiss the Zitlaw filed nied harmful to minors charge *4 guardian.” alleged D that: as a class (1) an information omitted of a 3. in review statute [T]he Court crime, specifically of the essential element to uphold legis- the intent statutory ex- the information omitted I.L.E. Statutes lature. accompanied minor is ception “unless each (2004). guardian” lan- parent 4. intent to legislature’s [T]he was (2) charging information failed guage; a person make it a crime when present the names of minors a perform- in or conducts engages in park way or affected minors, ance harmful to that is (3) actions; alleged Zitlaw’s the facts do may not such a know- of the perform- a violation constitute ingly intentionally do such an act harmful minors statute because no ance in minors have an area where actions; or saw the actual minors heard visual, auditory physical access. harmful to minors intent was legislature’s to es- unconstitutionally vague. After statute is by this statute children tablish trial court Zitlaw’s hearing, denied exposed to such al- should not be motion as follows: to dismiss leged criminal behavior. TO MOTION DIMISS 1.[Zitlaw’s] chose a allegedly public 5. [Zitlaw] into contentions toward
directs (a place choosing instead of park) Count PERFORMANCE private alleged TO MINORS 35- for such acts. HARMFUL room 49-3-3(5), Felony.... Therefore, D legal a Class has the [Zitlaw] upon which such crimi- responsibility The statute to be sure that chil- is I.C. nal is based 35-49-3- charge exposed dren to such al- are not 3(5), pertinent in part: which states leged acts. “... inten- who suggest that this 6. seems [Zitlaw]
tionally:
apply to
legislation
public
does not
parks
must be confined to book
but
in or conducts a
engages
interpre-
theaters. This
stores or
harmful to
formance that is
minors
against
holding
go
tation would
visual,
to which minors have
area
Sloan
lation to actually present Felony.” commits when children Class it to con- making illegal applied legis- instead this case. The to. lature, duct acts “in an to which area to specifically addition de- visual, auditory, have fining prohibited acts in I.C. physical access.” specifically also has de- fined “a matter or legislature right 7. has the [T]he I.C. 35-49-2- minors” a statute to chil- protect establish legisla- The Court finds being ex- dren in State from clearly ture has defined what con- posed prohibited, duct is and therefore harmful to minors. have Parents such statute is not unconstitutional- right to believe that ly vague applied this case. parks be safe ac- will from [*] formance constitute a violation of the mation facts parents the child [Zitlaw] conduct, it guardian.” given the such given nied firmative have minor in access. Such affirmative defense is tivity that would be harmful dren. [T]he parents alleged [*] wishes alleged in permission visual, auditory, when by by is do to next the an area going harmful the minor’s defense to a defendant to not as a [*] guardian in such area. such is the conduct the Such obtain the consents of parents *5 that has contends minor “is performance. to did is shown [*] to which minors responsibility person may Charging established to minors act. if is matter accompanying provide permission harmful to a or [*] parent or conduct guardian. accompa- physical by to chil- Infor- an af- that [*] If a law the do or is charging information but can hear and D.M.Z., need not ering a tion are to be taken as true. State v. crime formation, the consider or not a defendant can defendant files motion 1996), as a thereof, 34-1-6]; mation does not formance indictment or sufficient for Id. at 64-66. law’s motion to dismiss his any court abused its discretion On the constitute of the matter of appeal, alleged. ground tram, motion is dismissal evidence in determining Ind.Code certainty; rely entirely ... defective under following denied. A trial court consid the issue is whether the trial (4) that facts to information, See Ind.Code an law.” dismiss The indictment or infor of state to minors as a class D is a basis for dismissal offense; (5) § an information upon 35-34-1-4 grounds: The facts stated do on Generally, the offense to charged 587 (Ind.Ct.App. [Ind.Code the text of by denying charge a criminal dismiss an in or ... the informa (11) “(1) whether provides when a count case with Any per The Zit- 35- The Court finds that it is appeal, On reviewing court jury decide to whether [Zitlaw] grant will a trial review court’s of a motion intentionally and en- for an dismiss abuse of gaged prohibitive in such conduct. Isaacs, discretion. State v. 794 N.E.2d [Finally, In (Ind.Ct.App.2003). [Zitlaw] contends review ing harmful to minors a trial for an court’s decision abuse of discretion, unconstitutionally vague statute is only reverse where the deci- (1) matter to minors that logic and effect disseminates clearly against is sion minors; is harmful to the facts circumstances. (2) is displays matter harmful argues that the appeal, Zitlaw On minors an area which minors granted his motion should have trial court visual, auditory, or ac- physical have (1) the infor to dismiss because: cess, accompa- minor unless each is material element mation omits a parent guard- nied statute, “unless each i.e. applicable ian; parent accompanied minor’s is (3) any per- for sale displays sells (2) charging information guardian”; matter is harmful to minors son victims; of minor fails to the names (500) within five hundred feet of 35-49-3-3(5), (3) gov which line of property nearest a school conducting perform erns the offense church; felony, harmful minors class ance conducts engages perform- (4) the facts unconstitutionally vague; ance before minors law, not, as a matter of constitute do minors; harmful to minors as defined (5) engages perform- in or conducts a 35-49-2-2; Ind. by Ind.Code ance that harmful to minors per which defines a Code visual, area have minors, unconstitu formance auditory, access, unless vague. tionally accompanied by each minor guardian; minor’s Resolution of the issues raised *6 (6) misrepresents age for requires interpretation of Ind. Code minor’s Zitlaw purpose interpretation obtaining of a stat of admission § 35-49-3-3. minors which are for the to an area from question is a of law reserved ute of of Scalpelli display restricted because courts. 827 is 1193, de matter or a (Ind.Ct.App.2005), trans. minors; clear or language “A statute whose is to nied. subject judicial unambiguous is not to a misrepresents person “If, however, the stat
interpretation.” of guardian or a minor parent ambiguous, the court must deter ute is purpose obtaining of admission legislative interpret intent and mine the mi- the minor to area where of accordingly.” Id. “To deter the statute restricted of being nors because intent, plain we look to the legislative mine of matter or display of language the statute attribute minors; that is harmful to common, meaning to terms found ordinary a Class D commits everyday speech.” Id. clearly require 1 and Subsections 35-49-3-3(a) i.e., the dis- of- of actual governs the involvement Ind.Code minors — of “to or con- harmful minors as matter minors” fense of to semination mi- and, a performance at the Zit- of “before felony time of duction a class -3(a)(4). 35-49-3-3(a)(l), offense, ...” I.C. provided that a nors. law’s 2, 3, hand, and 5 the other subsections intentionally:4 On son who 35-49-3-3(a)(3) within five hundred amended that is harmful to minors Ind.Code was 2006, “sells, rents, 1, property of a nearest line July read: feet effective or church.” displays matter school for sale or rent presence actual require prospect do not of a there is a reasonable that chil- only might exposed dren under sixteen required minor. Subsection 3 conduct”). perpetrator’s sale or display of matter minors within 500 feet or church. school Sub- argues phrase “unless here, section which is at issue and sub- accompanied by each minor is the minor’s section certain conduct “in an forbid area parent guardian” problematic to this visual, auditory, to which minors have However, interpretation. agree access, unless each minor is ac- interpretation. State’s The State con- companied by guard- phrase tends that this is like an affirmative 3—3(a)(2), -3(a)(5). ian.” defense and defendant to allows “show 35^49— “permission, liberty, “Access” is defined as that un accompanied minors not have ability enter, approach, place question, access to the pass to' such as in a house, strip bar or an x-rated movie place approach and from a or com- where, fact, unaccompanied minors are thing.” municate with a Mer- usually Appellee’s allowed.” Brief at DictionaRy, http:// riaM-Webster’s Online words, 13. “In other where an un accom- (last www.m-w.com/dictionary/access visit- access, panied minor has no there no 2007). ed Under the October clear and crime.”6 charging Id. The “access,” unambiguous definition the mi- here identified the location of of- Zitlaw’s Rather, nor present. need not be minors fense public park, clearly which is only ability need the to see or hear the unaccompanied location ability See, present.5 conduct or the to be Further, are usually public allowed. e.g., Glotzbach v. 783 N.E.2d park clearly place where minors would 1227 (Ind.Ct.App.2003) (interpreting the ability have the see or hear Zitlaw’s phrase public “in place or on a where a ability present. conduct or the to be (16) years child age less than sixteen present” “only to mean that the children We conclude that it was unneces general must be in the area in a sary specific for the State name place perpetrator where the is so victims information and argues The dissent that Zitlaw anee” also did not as defined *7 engage “performance,” in a which is defined 'per- and further "we do noted that not limit dance, "any play, picture, as motion other recognized formance' to commercial or enter- presentation, pictured, exhibition or animated, whether plays, pic- tainment media such as motion live, performed before an audi- tures, the like.” concerts and Id. at 1134 n. (1) persons.” ence of one or more Ind.Code 8. We see little distinction between Sloan and However, § 35-49-1-7. Zitlaw did not make allegedly exposed this case where Zitlaw and argument Appellant’s this in his Brief. Con- manipulated penis before the his officer. sequently, reversing for this basis the trial court's denial of Zitlaw's motion to dismiss Although the each “unless minor is accom- See, State, e.g., Chupp has been waived. v. panied by guardian” 119, (hold- (Ind.Ct.App.2005) 830 N.E.2d 126 phrase apply logically only plays, must ing argument by waived an defendant movies, dances, and exhibitions at brief). failing appellant’s to raise in his it unaccompanied usually minors are not notwithstanding, finding Waiver that Zitlaw allowed, encourage the to clari- did not in a conflicts fy statute reflect the to better this intent. See State, opinion with our v. 794 of Sloan N.E.2d § (defining "perform- Ind.Code 35-49-1-7 There, (Ind.Ct.App.2003). 1128 the defen- dance, "any play, picture, ance” home, as motion dant broke sat into a on couch next presentation, pic- other exhibition or whether eight-year-old girl, exposed to an and and tured, animated, live, Sloan, performed manipulated before an penis. his 794 N.E.2d at (1) “perform- persons”). 1134. We held that this was a audience of one more
731 presence actual of a minor. unnecessary quire the the that State it was that above, Moreover, as noted we conclude each phrase the “unless include 49—3—3(a)(5) § parent or that does by the minor’s Ind.Code accompanied 35— “A actual of minors. charging require presence information. the guardian” Thus, the argument must ele fails. charging information Zitlaw’s such that the accused is of the crime ments Finally, argues that Zitlaw sufficiently of the nature of the apprised 35-49-3-3, which defines both Ind.Code may antici against him so that he charges of harmful to mi offense proof prepare a defense pate felony, nors as a class Ind.Code State, v. 748 of trial.” Winn advance the phrase which defines (Ind.2001); Ind.Code N.E.2d minors,” “performance in an of detail in “Absence 35-34-1-2. unconstitutionally vague. When only if phraseology is fatal formation validity challenged, of a statute is the re give or fails to him misleads defendant viewing begins presumption of court charges him.” against of notice constitutionality. v. Glover (Ind. 495 N.E.2d McGee (Ind.Ct.App.2002), 1986). at charging The information issue The trans. burden rebut denied. Zitlaw of the sufficiently apprised here upon challenger, and all presumption charges against him. nature resolved in fa reasonable doubts must be argues that the facts Zitlaw also of Id. A constitutionality. vor the statute’s not, do unconstitutionally statute not be found will law, matter constitute a violation of as a of vague ordinary intelligence if individuals Zitlaw because did Ind.Code 35-49-3-3 inform comprehend adequately it that is harmful “performance not commit a proscribed them of the conduct. phrase is defined in to minors” as only statute need inform individual A conduct; it need generally proscribed if: harmful minors item of con not list with exactitude each (1) in any represents, prohibited. it describes duct Id. A statute is void
form, conduct, sexual nudity, sexual if it vagueness only vague applied excitement, sado-masochistic precise circumstances the instant abuse; case. Id. whole, appeals it considered poses hypothetical situa prurient interest in sex mi- attempt tions to demonstrate nors; Zit- vague. example, For the statutes are patently prevailing it is offensive law statute would be vio argues community in the adult *8 standards sibling lated if a hears older respect a suit- whole with what room if a having adjacent sex for or performance able matter be- neighbor’s par peers child into a curious minors; fore and tially patio sexual activi and sees fenced-in whole, a it lacks seri- considered as However, ty occurring in a hot tub. “while artistic, literary, political,
ous sci- imagination can there is little doubt that entific value for minors. conjure in up hypothetical cases which terms be in meaning of will argues [the statute’s] are question, nice because we condemned 2 and 3 not satisfied be- subsections First, expect to the of words we can never present. no we use cause minors were from lan- certainty 2 not mathematical our and 3 do re- note subsections 732 Shuger 859
guage.” v. N.E.2d the trial conclude that court did not 1235-1286 (Ind.Ct.App.2007) (quoting Hill by abuse denying its discretion Zitlaw’s Colorado, 703, 733, 120 U.S. S.Ct. See, e.g., motion to dismiss. Shuger, (2000) (inter 2498, 147 L.Ed.2d (“We N.E.2d at 1236 likewise conclude omitted)), nal citations trans. denied. that despite hypotheticals Shugers importantly, speculation pos “More about pose brief, to us in their it what is clear vagueness hypothetical sible in situations activities Hunter Harassment Statute before will support not [the court] a prohibits.”). whole attack surely facial on statute when it is reasons, For the foregoing we affirm the majority valid the vast of its intended trial court’s denial Zitlaw’s motion to Hill, applications.” Id. at 1236 (quoting charge dismiss the 2498). 733, 120 at at 530 U.S. S.Ct. D felony. minors as a class Despite hypotheticals posed by Zit- Affirmed. law, we conclude that individuals of ordi- nary intelligence comprehend would FRIEDLANDER, J., concurs. performance harmful to minors statute ad- equately enough to inform them of the RILEY, J., separate dissents with Further, proscribed conduct.7 Zitlaw’s al- opinion. leged conduct of exposing himself in a RILEY, Judge, dissenting. park purpose for the of engaging in I clearly oral sex within would the trial falls reverse court’s denial of conduct proscribed by Consequently, the statutes. Zitlaw’s motion to dismiss. rea- The main acknowledge We Supreme legitimate, Indiana nalize an assortment of normal recently hypotheticals Court such addressed everyday behavior. The word "enticement” in Brown v. 468-469 commonly understood to mean act of (Ind.2007), held where it the terms luring, attracting, tempting another “fraud” and "enticement" in the criminal arousing hope or desire. The offense of vagueness. confinement statute were void for However, confinement, felony, criminal a class D distinguishable. we find Brown would person thus occur whenever a know- There, the court held: ingly intentionally hope arouses desire Ordinary people commonly understand person in another to lure or attract "trickery,” "deception,” "fraud” to mean change Literally, location. understood, or "deceit.” Thus offense proscription array include a broad confinement, of criminal felony, class D behavior, quite acceptable e.g., human in- person would be committed whenever a traspousal parent-child communica- intentionally causes another location; change tions to induce com- change location means of advertising mercial to entice travel or visits trickery, deception, scope deceit. The events; religious to stores appeals proscription would embrace a vast foster church attendance. As to fraud both very acceptable assortment of and even sa- enticement, possibilities end- seem lutary clearly conduct that is not criminal less. nature, e.g., using misleading reasons to (footnote omitted). Id. at 468-469 Each of person's secure a attendance for their sur- hypotheticals private Zitlaw’s involves con- celebration; prise birthday evoking Santa inadvertently duct witnessed or heard eye Claus's watchful induce go a child to already minor. courts have Indiana held that bed; employing flattery exaggeration performed private conduct place to motivate another to attend an *9 event; person right where the has a to be does not asserting persuade an untruth to Sloan, "performance.” constitute a See patient Alzheimer's enter to the location of Thus, caregiver. N.E.2d at hypotheticals a Zitlaw's persuasive Criminal for are not in demonstrating confinement removal en- that applied ticement can be unconstitutionally likewise to statute vague. crimi- is majority’s approach or or communicate place from to with my divergence for son “an area interpretation thing.” Op. Applying that at 730. my a or opinion visual, auditory, or definition, minors have majority to which this concludes that access,” in defini- as included physical see, hear, not present minors need be to or conducting perform- crime of tion a for feel unsuitable minors, requires harmful to actu- ance them, it for to and thus a be hear, see, can or of minors that presence al Class D § performance. 35-49- feel However, predictable situations can be 3-3(5). I interpret language also anticipated consenting when adults will en- requiring subsection as the State to this gage in certain behavior not for suitable doubt, beyond a that the reasonable prove, places minors in minors have the where their unaccompanied minors are I ability present, be but not. to are con- Thus, I would conclude that guardian. clude our legislature did intend a any such actions. For example, criminalize a conducting engaging taking by allega- majority’s interpretation and identify harmful to minors must heard, saw, § applying tion at least one minor who it to subsection I.C. 35-49-3- performance, 3(2), “visual, and felt the requires auditory, which also par- unaccompanied by their access,” minors were physical any public an adult in guardian. ent area shows another adult friend a who 85- n 9-3-3(5) picture pornographic displays small § Requires I. I.C. a woman’s naked breasts has committed the Presence Minors minors, of matter harmful to dissemination statute, reviewing I note that When felony, if at a D even the time of the Class cer- begin by prohibiting the subsections display minor located no within miles of in tain behavior areas where minors have Furthermore, a two adults.8 married “visual, auditory, access.” I.C. in couple engages sexual conduct 35-49-3-3(2) (5). & has Our a camping while tent in secluded wilder- not defined what is meant “access.” that is open ness area would usually are words a statute Undefined pursuant a committing felony Class ordinary their and mean- given plain, usual majority’s interpretation of to the I.C. l-l-4-l(c). ing. See Courts I.C. 35-49-3-3(5) regardless of how careful English language consult dictionaries are they any- to be no minors sure plain ordinary meaning and ascertain campsite. where close their What is State, 791 statutory term. Stratton v. more, adults, young fully clothed amorous (Ind.Ct.App.2003). This out-of-the-way area of pub- located majority develops interpreta- how the its park, kissing lic most tion that access as included the statute too passionate adults consider “permission, liberty, ability means enter, younger eyes as from a could be arrested felons approach, pass (3) prevailing "any pic- patently includes offensive 8. "Matter” for statute it picture community ture.” adult I.C. 35-49-1-3. standards "harmful to minors” if: suitable mat- respect whole with to what is minors; form, before (1) ter for represents, it describes or whole, conduct, excitement, it lacks serious considered as nudity, sexual sexual abuse; literary, artistic/political, or scientific value or sadomasochistic whole, for minors. appeals it to the considered minors; prurient interest in sex *10 734
by
majority’s interpretation
separate sensory
although
modes
which minors
no minors observe their actions.
will become aware
perform-
of the harmful
sound,
Therefore,
sight,
ance:
and touch.
reason,
For
I
believe
should be
“access,”
I
conclude
as used
subsec-
guided by
logic
of our court in Low v.
35-49-3-3(5),
tion I.C.
denotes some-
(Ind.Ct.App.1991),
In determining what our a “performance.” has A “performance” “access,” intended the word I statutorily choose defined Indiana Code Arti- first dance, to look it. preceding “any play, picture, words A cle 49 as motion method meaning to determine the presentation, exhibition or doubtful animated, words is reference to pictured, live, their whether relationship other associated words formed before an audience one and phrases. By stating the types persons.” of more I “visual, being auditory, access physi- requirement would conclude that cal,” the legislature “performance,” has identified three described exhibition or *11 Miller charged. See v. requires an offense in turn presentation, which (Ind.Ct.App.1994). 634 N.E.2d audience, my interpreta- supports further that the our intended tion that explains, Finally, majority “[a] as the 35-49-3-3(5) by I.C. proscribed conduct allege information must the ele- charging seen, heard, by before it or felt minors crime that the ments of the accused criminal.9 can be considered sufficiently apprised of nature of him he charges against may antici- so Allege the The State Must Minors II. pate proof prepare defense Accompanied by Not Were at 731 Op. (quoting advance of trial.” or Guardians Parents (Ind. 748 N.E.2d Winn Further, I the information filed believe 35-34-1-2). 2001); Regardless I.C. failing by insufficient for the State is “unless language whether the each accompanied were not allege by minor’s accompanied parent parents guardians. I.C. 35- their of the guardian” is viewed as element 49-3-3(5) negates caveat contains a which defense, I con- crime or as an affirmative criminality engaging prohibit- requires language clude that this the State is accom- conduct: “unless each minor ed specific in a minor’s guardian.” panied unaccompanied by par- minors who were I clause constitutes an conclude that this guardian ent or so that defend of the crime element himself, sufficiency disputing either minors. defined An element has been evidence, by presenting State’s part of a claim that constituent “[a] proves that his own evidence which proved for the claim to succeed.” must be by parents or accompanied minors were Dictionary ed.2004). (8th guardians. Law Black’s successfully prove the State to its For I reverse foregoing, Based on minors, performance harmful to claim of denial of Zitlaw’s motion the trial court’s prove they
they must the minors —which proceed- for further dismiss and remand present, have were but did alleged should him. charges against ings on the unaccompanied by parents their not—were Therefore, I find guardians. comport Information fails to with State’s Indiana Code section requirements that an informa- requires forth the nature and elements of
tion set interpret Deputy one of majority’s interpretation Clifford's action as accepting Even par- making Deputy participation, Clifford argument, I note from the facts for sake audience; therefore, ticipant and not an pre-trial limited record presented us in the Zitlaw, re- Deputy State has Clifford kneeled before 35-49-3-3(5). penis. quired by I placing his face level Zitlaw's