Opinion ID: 2232847
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Attempted Criminal Deviate Conduct

Text: Williams first argues that the evidence does not support his conviction for attempted criminal deviate conduct [12] because there is no evidence that he engaged in a substantial step toward the commission of criminal deviate conduct. He concedes that he asked the victim to perform oral sex on him but argues that [n]othing else was said or demonstrated ... in furtherance of this request. The victim testified that 1) she was ordered to commit sexual acts with both men simultaneously and 2) while they were giving these orders, Edmondson was holding a gun. See Johnson v. State, 272 Ind. 547, 549, 400 N.E.2d 132, 133 (1980) (defendant's command to victim is sufficient to support conviction for attempted criminal deviate conduct). She also testified that as she tried to get away she was forced back into the car and some of her clothing was forcibly removed. This is clearly sufficient to show that substantial steps were taken toward the commission of criminal deviate conduct. Williams next argues that there was insufficient evidence to elevate his conviction to a Class A felony. Criminal deviate conduct becomes a Class A felony if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon.... IND.CODE § 35-42-4-2 (1993). The victim testified that Edmondson had a gun in his hand when ordering her to submit to the sex acts. Williams claims that because Edmondson pulled the gun and placed it on the arm rest, he had no control over the weapon. However, the jury could reasonably infer that the gun was initially in Edmondson's control and was intended to remain there. That is enough for Edmondson's attempt even if control of the gun was lost. As noted above, each accomplice is criminally liable for the acts of the other in furtherance of their common objective. Jones, 536 N.E.2d at 270. Thus, Williams is liable for the presence of the gun and his conviction for a Class A felony is supported by the evidence.