Court Opinion

ID: 9740983
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 20:46:44.440802+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:21.334689
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
The trial court construed this charge of child molesting together with the child molesting statute, and in Final Instruction Number 15, instructed the jury as follows:
To convict the defendant of child molesting the State must have proved each of the following elements:
* * # La % *
5. [S.M.] was at the time of the occurrence twelve (12) years of age or older but under sixteen (16) years of age. If the State failed to prove each of these elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant not guilty. *1311If the State did prove each of the elements beyond a reasonable doubt, you should find the defendant guilty of child molesting, a class D felony.
The State did not object to this instruction and the construction of the child molesting statute upon which it is based. It did not for example tender an instruction that the victim, S.M., was at the time of the occurrence under the age of sixteen years. Nor did it tender an instruction that she was around twelve years old, or between eleven and twelve. Thus the State at the time of trial agreed with or at least acquiesced in the trial court's construction of the statute and charge making age a full-fledged crime element and requiring proof of age of the victim as stated in the court's instruction. ILC. 85-87-22. Criminal Rule 8. The State also did not ask for, or argué for the Court to instruct on any possible lesser included offenses, which it might well have done.
The jury, after being instructed returned the following verdict:
We the jury find the defendant Michael Barger guilty of the crime of Child Molesting a Class D Felony.
This verdict is based upon the determination of the jury that beyond a reasonable doubt the victim was over twelve and under sixteen at the time of the occurrence. On appeal, appellate counsel claimed the evidence was insufficient to warrant that determination, and the sole response of the State in its brief is that the victim's testimony was sufficient evidence to support that determination. The Court of Appeals steadfastly applied the correct appellate standard in reviewing this claim, declared the age of the victim to be a required element, determined the proof of that element to be insufficient, and reversed the conviction. In so doing that Court followed established legal principles to the correct legal result.
DICKSON, J., concurs.