Court Opinion

ID: 9532649
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 04:23:33.641138+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:28:48.169658
License: Public Domain

ADDENDUM ON DENIAL OF REHEARING
This case is before us on a second petition for rehearing submitted by the Appellants. The Appellants assert that there is evidence in the record that creates a genuine issue of material faet as to whether the Does’ son’s conduct was an “accident” so as to be a covered “occurrence” under the policy. Specifically, counsel for the Appellants points to testimony of a psychologist and of Detective Steiner. For the reasons stated below, this Court does not find that this evidence establishes a genuine issue of fact as to the nature of the Does’ son’s conduct.
A. Testimony of Psychologist:
Kerry Lindorfer, a psychologist, testified by affidavit for the Appellants. Regardless of the assertion made in her affidavit that “[c]hildren under 14 may not have developed the ability to understand that their actions, *697especially those of a sexual nature, are criminal, inappropriate, and potentially harmful to the victim.” Lindorfer does not state an independent, personal evaluation of John Doe I. In fact, she concluded by stating:
I understand that I have been asked to give this affidavit in association with pending litigation and that this affidavit may be filed in that litigation. I understand that the litigation involves an offender, age 13, and a victim, age 8. Other than this I have not reviewed any factual material pertaining to the case or been advised of any other factual material pertaining to the case. The information provided in this affidavit is intended to be general information about juvenile sex offenders and not particular information about any person.
B. Testimony of Officer:
In the deposition of Detective Steiner, the following question was asked:
Q: Did you ever gain the impression at all that [John Doe I] had in any way intended to hurt [Jane Roe I]?
A: No.
The petition for rehearing asserts that this establishes that John Doe I’s conduct was accidental.
Other testimony in Detective Steiner’s deposition amplifies the results of his investigation:
Q: Detective Steiner, my name is Nick Crawford. I represent [John and Jane Doe]. Did you ultimately come to the conclusion, based upon your investigation, that [John Doe I] had touched [Jane Roe I] in the genital area?
A: Yes.
Q: Based upon that investigation, you referred and recommended the filing of a petition?
A: Yes.
Q: What exactly does that mean?
A: That means a petition has to be filed through juvenile court for a juvenile court proceeding, and he then has a chance to admit or deny the allegations or the charges. And if he admits it, then they go ahead and make disposition on it. If he denies it, then it is set for hearing.
Q: So by recommending a petition be filed, you are referring and recommending that a juvenile proceeding take place?
A: Yes.
Q: You are referring and recommending that juvenile prosecution take place?
A: Yes.
Q: So based upon your investigation, you came to the conclusion that an offense had taken place?
A: Yes.
Q: It was your conclusion that this was not an accidental — these were not accidental acts by [John Doe I]?
A: Yes.
Q: Do you feel qualified, based on that training, to say whether or not in this particular situation the touching might have started out accidental and then gone to another level?
MR. CRAWFORD: Objection; foundation.
MR. ANDERSON: Join.
MR. SEINIGER: That’s what the question goes to, is to his qualifications.
BY MR. BISTLINE:
Q: You can answer.
A: Okay.
Q: You are done bickering.
A: I think in this particular case, I think that’s a possibility and it is based on the statements he made about curiosity because of the magazines, pornographic magazines he was interested in. He is H years old, hormones have kicked in, and he is curious as to what a girl looks like. So if he has got a chance to look, he is going to.
Q: How much of your work involves with investigations of juvenile perpetrators?
A: Over the past about three years, we have handled all the cases whether it was juvenile or adult offenders. It’s been in the last year that the school resource officer handles juvenile offenders. Probably over the past ten years I have worked "with juveniles, all of the *698sexual abuse cases worked with juvenile offenders.
Q: Based on your experience with juveniles how would you characterize [John Doe I] with respect to whether there was any maliciousness in his actions?
A: I would characterize [John Doe I] as being more curious—
MR. ANDERSON: I need to introduce an objection here on the basis of speculation. Go ahead and finish. I am sorry.
THE WITNESS: —more curious than malicious, that it was a malicious intent. It is possible, too, that someone at this age develop into, that age child, being a sexual preference is what I see that could happen if he stays with that interest in the opposite sex of that age group.
MR. BISTLINE:
Q: But it wasn’t your sense that that orientation had occurred yet?
A: Right.
(emphasis added.)
In reviewing the Appellant’s opening brief, the argument is premised upon the idea that John Doe I did not intend harm. The argument is not that he unintentionally took her clothes off in a bathroom away from public view, touched her in the genital area and then told her a green monster would get her if she told anybody. The conduct was sexually motivated and was intentional. It is clear that he understood he should not do this in light of concealment and the threat to the girl. He may not have anticipated the full extent of the problems his conduct would cause the girl, but it is clear that he knew it was wrong and that adverse consequences would follow. This Court concludes that the record is subject to only one interpretation— that the conduct was not accidental as we have defined that term. As indicated, the record, read in its entirety, supports this conclusion.
The petition for rehearing is denied.
TROUT, C.J., JOHNSON and McDEVHT *, JJ., and WOOD, J. Pro Tern., concur.