Court Opinion

ID: 9542698
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 16:37:27.328958+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:08:41.959248
License: Public Domain

CONOVER, Presiding Judge,
concurring in result.
I concur in result. As written, IND. CODE 35-42-4-2(8) does not allow us to interpret it to include inability to consent due solely to age. I cannot believe our legislature wants to allow children under the age of 16, who are not mentally disabled or deficient, to be able to consent to deviate conduct with adults. Indeed, IND. CODE 35-42-4-8(c) provides class C felony penalties for such conduct without requiring proof the child is so mentally disabled or deficient he cannot consent. However, the plain language of 35-42-4-2(8) requires proof the inability to consent is due to mental disablement or deficiency.
Here, the local prosecutor sought the greater class B felony penalties of IND. CODE 35-42-4-2(8), then failed to prove the inability to consent required thereby. We cannot rewrite the plain language of IND.CODE 385-42-4-2(8), nor can we amend or modify the charging instrument. Those tasks are for the legislature by correcting this obvious mistake, or the local prosecutor if the statutory language remains the same.