Court Opinion

ID: 9737351
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:22:43.61863+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:23:58.303690
License: Public Domain

BUCHANAN, Judge,
dissenting.
DISSENTING OPINION
I respectfully dissent. Following Hawk's trial, the trial court stated:
"I salute your efforts on behalf of your client. I listened closely to a most persuasive closing argument and have, in fact, read Easterday v. State [, 254 Ind. 13, 256 N.E.2d 901,] most closely, and as to count II in this cause, Child Molesting, a class C felony, the court finds your client ... not guilty.... As to count I, after careful deliberation, the court finds the Defendant guilty of the lesser included offense of Child Molesting, a Class C felony, in that he performed fondling and touching with [the victim] a child under the age of twelve years, with the intent to arouse or satisfy sexual desires of Tony Wayne Hawk.... [The court adjudges the defendant] guilty of the crime of Child Molesting, a Class C felony, a lesser included offense to Count I, as charged in the information...."
Record at 592-94. Count I of the information charged Hawk with child molesting, a Class B felony, under IC 35-42-4-3(a), for having sexual intercourse with the victim. Count II charged Hawk with child molesting, a Class C felony, for fondling or touching the victim as provided in subsection (b) of IC 35-42-4-8. The trial court clearly found Hawk guilty of the lesser child molesting offense of fondling and touching the victim. It appears to me from the record that the trial court simply confused the number of the two counts when announcing the verdict, thereby appearing to create a hybrid count of touching and fondling as a lesser included offense of sexual intercourse. The trial court's statement is that Hawk was guilty of touching and fondling "as charged in the information." The trial court was not intending to fashion a novel crime under the child molesting statute.
Although portions of the verdict may have been confusingly stated on record, this was a minor imperfection which should not affect the validity of Hawk's sentence. Therefore, I would invoke Rule 15(E) of the Indiana Rules of Appellate Procedure, "deem" the imperfection "amended," and affirm the conviction. See Coppock v. State (1985), Ind., 480 N.E.2d 941.