Police called to residence ofcr Austin lamb50Word文件下载.docx

Police called to residence ofcr Austin lamb50Word文件下载.docx

《Police called to residence ofcr Austin lamb50Word文件下载.docx》由会员分享，可在线阅读，更多相关《Police called to residence ofcr Austin lamb50Word文件下载.docx（7页珍藏版）》请在冰豆网上搜索。

JODIKATHRYNSTEIN

DeputyAttorneyGeneral

Indianapolis,Indiana

INTHE

COURTOFAPPEALSOFINDIANA

RYANMOON,）

）

Appellant-Defendant,）

vs.）No.27A02-0408-CR-687

STATEOFINDIANA,）

Appellee-Plaintiff.）

APPEALFROMTHEGRANTSUPERIORCOURT

TheHonorableRandallL.Johnson,Judge

CauseNo.27D02-0401-FA-9

March9,2005

OPINION-FORPUBLICATION

VAIDIK,Judge

CaseSummary

Aftertwenty-seven-year-oldRyanMoonhadsexualintercoursewithafourteen-year-oldgirl,hewasconvictedofsexualmisconductwithaminorandreceivedthemaximumsentence.Onappealhearguedthatheshouldnothavehadtheburdentoprovethedefensethathereasonablybelievedthathisvictimwasolderthanfifteen;

thathissentencingenhancementviolatedtheSixthAmendment;

andthatthetrialcourtshouldnothaverejectedaprofferedmitigator.Weaffirm,holdingthattheburdentoprovethe“reasonablebelief”defenseproperlymaybeplacedonadefendantchargedwithsexualmisconductwithaminorandthatthesentencewaswithinthetrialcourt’sdiscretion.

FactsandProceduralHistory

ThefactsmostfavorabletothejudgmentshowthataroundmidnightonDecember17,2003,J.V.,agethirteen,sneakedoutofhergrandparents’hometomeetafriendatMcCullochMiddleSchool.Becausetheweatherwascoldandshehadalongdistancetotravel,J.V.hitchhiked.

RyanL.Moon,agetwenty-seven,pickedupJ.V.anddrovehertoMcCulloch.WhentheycouldnotfindJ.V.’sfriend,Moonaskedherifshewantedtocometohishouse,andsheagreed.Inthecar,J.V.toldMoonthatsheattendedMcCulloch,aschoolforstudentsingrades5through8,andshowedhimherschoolphotoidentificationcard.Thatevening,shetoldMoonthatshewas16yearsold.

AtMoon’shome,heturnedonapornographicvideotapetowatchwithJ.V.Duringthevideo,heunzippedherpantsandtouchedhergenitals.Heaskedhertogotohisbedroomseveraltimes.Thefirsttwotimes,shedeclined.Onthethirdinvitation,sheagreed.Inhisbedroom,MoonandJ.V.hadsexualintercourse.Hedroveherhomeatapproximately2a.m.

ByJanuary6,2004,whenMoonandJ.V.wereagaintogether,J.V.hadhadherfourteenthbirthday.Onthisdate,J.V.andS.R.skippedschoolandwenttoMoon’shome,whichwasnearMcCulloch.TheytoldMoontheyhadcomefromMcCulloch.Duringthisencounter,J.V.,S.R.,andMoonallwereinMoon’sbedroom.MoonaskedS.R.toleave,andJ.V.andMoonhadsexualintercourseagain.

Laterthatday,aftertheschoolhadinformedS.R.’smotherthatS.R.wasnotinschool,S.R.’smotherlearnedfromS.R.’sbabysittingemployerthatthegirlswerelikelyatMoon’sresidence.Shewenttotheresidence,andwhennoonewouldletherin,shecalledpolice.

OnJanuary8,2004,theStatechargedMoonwithonecountofChildMolestingasaClassAfelonyandonecountofSexualMisconductwithaMinorasaClassBfelony.Aftertrial,thejuryconvictedhimofsexualmisconductwithaminorandacquittedhimofchildmolesting.Thetrialcourtsentencedhimtoatwenty-yearterm.

DiscussionandDecision

I.JuryInstructiononReasonableBeliefDefense

Moonfirstquestionswhetherthetrialcourt’sinstructionstothejuryproperlyplacedonMoontheburdentoprovethedefensethathereasonablybelievedthatJ.V.wasatleast16yearsold.LikeMoon,wehavefoundnocasediscussingtheburdenofproofonthedefenseofreasonablebeliefunderIndianaCode§

35-42-4-9.

Thewell-settledstandardbywhichwereviewchallengestojuryinstructionsaffordsgreatdeferencetothetrialcourt.Themannerofinstructingthejurylieswithinthetrialcourt’ssounddiscretion.Kellyv.State,813N.E.2d1179,1185（Ind.Ct.App.2004）,trans.denied.Indeterminingwhetherthetrialcourtabuseditsdiscretionregardingchallengestojuryinstructionswewillconsider:

（1）whetherthetenderedinstructioncorrectlystatesthelaw;

（2）whethertherewasevidencepresentedattrialtosupportgivingtheinstruction;

and（3）whetherthesubstanceoftheinstructionwascoveredbyotherinstructionsthatweregiven.Id.Moonchallengesasanincorrectstatementoflawthetrialcourt’sinstructionallocatingtohimtheburdentoprovethathereasonablybelievedJ.V.tobeatleastsixteenyearsold.

Indianalawstatesthatanindividualolderthantwenty-onecommitssexualmisconductwithaminorasaClassBfelonywhenheparticipatesinsexualintercourseordeviatesexualconductwithanindividualolderthanfourteenbutyoungerthansixteen.I.C.§

35-42-4-9（a）.Thestatutealsosetsforthadefense:

“Itisadefensethattheaccusedpersonreasonablybelievedthatthechildwasatleastsixteen（16）yearsofageatthetimeoftheconduct.”Id.at（c）.

Thetrialcourt’sFinalInstructionNo.3definedthecrimeofsexualmisconductwithaminor.Itthenstated:

“Itisadefensethatthedefendantreasonablybelievedthat[J.V.]wassixteenyearsofageorolder.Ifthedefendantprovedthisbyapreponderanceoftheevidence,youmustfindthedefendantnotguiltyofsexualmisconductwithaminor....”Appellant’sApp.p.95（capitalizationomitted）.

Thetrialcourt’sFinalInstructionNo.4elaboratedonthislanguage:

“Forthedefenseofmistakenbelieftoprevail,thedefendantbearstheburdenofprovingbyapreponderanceoftheevidencethat:

（1）thedefendanthadtheactualbeliefthatthechildwassixteenyearsofageorolder;

and

（2）thebeliefwasreasonableunderthecircumstances.”Id.at96（capitalizationomitted;

parenthesesadded）.

Moonprofferedadifferentinstruction,allocatingtheburdenofprooftotheState:

RegardingtheChargesinCount#2,SexualMisconductwithaMinor,aClassBFelony,itisanissuewhethertheaccusedmistakenlycommittedtheactscharged.

Specifically,itisadefenseiftheaccusedperson（RyanMoon）reasonablybelievedthatthechild（J.V.）wassixteen（16）yearsofageorolderatthetimeoftheallegedoffense.（OnoraboutJanuary6,2004）.TheStatehastheburdenofprovingbeyondareasonabledoubtthattheaccusedwasnotreasonablymistakeninhisbeliefthatthechildwas16yearsofageorolderatthetimeoftheoffense.

Indeterminingwhethertheaccused’sbeliefwasreasonable,youmustdeterminewhetherareasonablepersoninhispositionwouldhavehadsuchabelief.Thismeansthatyoumustconsiderallthecircumstancesindecidingwhetherhisbeliefwasreasonable.

Ifyouhaveareasonabledoubtaboutwhetherareasonablepersonintheaccused’ssituationwouldhavehadsuchabelief,youmustgivetheaccusedthebenefitofthedoubtandfindthatthebeliefwasreasonablyheld.

Id.at59.Moonpresentedthetrialcourtpatternjuryinstructionsonmistakeoffactdefensesandotherauthoritysupportinghisprofferedinstruction.

Thetrialcourt’sinstructionwasacorrectstatementoflawbecausethemistakenbeliefdefenseinIndianaCode§

35-42-4-9doesnotnegateanelementofthecrime;

ifbelieved,thedefenseonlyreducesMoon’sculpabilityforactsheadmitsthathecommitted.Becausethemistakenbeliefdefensedoesnotnegateanelement,theburdentoprovethedefenseproperlymaybeplacedonthedefendant.ItiswellsettledthattheStatehastheburdenofprovingallelementsofachargedcrimebeyondareasonabledoubt.Francisv.Franklin,471U.S.307,317-18（1985）;

Powersv.State,540N.E.2d1225,1227（Ind.1989）,reh’gdenied.Theburdenofprovingadefensemaybeplacedonthedefendantsolongasprovingthedefensedoesnotrequirethedefendanttonegateanelementofthecrime.Martinv.Ohio,480U.S.228,233-34（1987）（positingthatstatelawmayassigndefendantburdenofproofondefenseofself-defense）;

Moorev.State,673N.E.2d776,779（Ind.Ct.App.1996）,trans.denied.

Ifthedefensespecificallynegatesanelementofthecrime,however,theStatehastheburdentoprovebeyondareasonabledoubttheabsenceofthedefense.Blatchfordv.State,673N.E.2d781,782-83（Ind.Ct.App.1996）.StatesmayassignburdensofproofrelatingtodefensestoeithertheStateorthedefendant,solongastheStatestillretainstheburdenofprovingtheelements.Martin,480U.S.at233-34;

WayneR.LaFave&

AustinW.Scott,Jr.,CriminalLaw§

8,p.47-49（1972）.TheModelPenalCodealsoindicatesthattheburdentoproveadefensemaybeplaceduponthedefendant.ModelPenalCode§

1.12（4）.

AsrelevanttoMoon’sconviction,thestatutoryelementsofSexualMisconductwithaMinorare:

（1）apersonoveragetwenty-onewho,

（2）withachildatleastagefourteenbutlessthanagesixteen,and（3）performssexualintercourseordeviatesexualconduct.I.C.§

34-42-4-9（a）.Asthetrialcourtcorrectlyinstructedthejury（withoutobjectionfromMoon）,amensreaof“knowingly”appliestothecrime.Appellant’sApp.p.94;

seealsoWarrenv.State,701N.E.2d902,905（Ind.Ct.App.1998）,trans.denied（holdingcriminalintentastotheactisrequiredincrimeofSexualMisconductwithaMinor）;

Louallenv.State,778N.E.2d794,797（Ind.2002）（holding“knowing”intentimpliedinChildMolestingstatute）.Thedefendant’sknowledgeofthevictim’sageisnotanelementofthecrime,soMoon’scontentionthathisreasonablebeliefthatJ.V.wasatleastsixteennegatesanelementofthecrimeisincorrect.

Rather,adefendant’sreasonablebeliefthathisvictimisagesixteenorolderisadefenseunderthespecifictermsofthestatute.Suchadefense“admitsalltheelementsofthecrimebutprovescircumstanceswhichexcusethedefendantfromculpability.”