Staton v. State

• Citation: 853 N.E.2d 470
• Decision Date: 06 September 2006
• Docket Number: No. 85S02-0605-CR-194.,85S02-0605-CR-194.
• Parties: Joshua STATON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).
• Court: Supreme Court of Indiana

853 N.E.2d 470

Joshua STATON, Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff below).

No. 85S02-0605-CR-194.

Supreme Court of Indiana.

September 6, 2006.

Craig Persinger, Marion, IN, Attorney for Appellant.

Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Kelly A. Miklos, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.

On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 85A02-0508-CR-719.

BOEHM, Justice.

It is a core constitutional principle that in a criminal prosecution the State must prove every element of an offense. We hold that when the age of a defendant is an element of a crime the defendant does not waive that requirement by failing to file a motion to dismiss on the ground that he is not of the required age.

Facts and Procedural History

On the evening of January 18, 2004, two fifteen year old girls, M.M. and E.G., were dropped off at the swimming pool where Joshua Staton was working as a lifeguard. Both M.M. and E.G. knew Staton because his family had socialized with their families in the past. When the pool closed at 8:00 or 8:30 pm, M.M. and E.G. were unable to reach the person who was to pick them up and asked Staton to drive them home. Staton agreed, and asked if the girls would like to stop by his dormitory room at Manchester College. The girls agreed, and according to E.G., after she and Staton were left alone in Staton's dormitory room, the two engaged in sexual inter-course.

On April 20, 2004, the State charged Joshua Staton with sexual misconduct with a minor, a Class C felony, requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt that at the time of the incident, Staton was at least eighteen years of age, and E.G. was more than fourteen but less than sixteen years old.¹ The evidence at trial was brief. The State presented testimony from M.M. and E.G., and the defense presented no evidence. Both M.M. and E.G. testified to their dates of birth, establishing that they were less than sixteen years old on January 18, 2004. The jury was instructed to convict Staton only if it found his age at the time of the alleged offense to be at least eighteen, and the jury found Staton guilty. On July 11, 2005, Staton was sentenced to four years imprisonment, with one year suspended to be served on probation. On appeal, Staton challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. Specifically, he contends that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was at least eighteen years of age at the time of the offense.

The Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction, holding that Staton waived any challenge to the sufficiency of proof of his age because he did not file a motion to dismiss on the ground that he was not at least eighteen years old at the time of the charged offense. Staton v. State, 843 N.E.2d 75, 76 (Ind.Ct.App.2006). The Court of Appeals believed that this Court's opinion in McGowan v. State, 267 Ind. 16, 366 N.E.2d 1164 (1977) compelled that result. Judge Vaidik disagreed as to the effect of McGowan, concluding that more recent decisions by this Court "and sound policy considerations support the position that where the offender's age is an element of the crime charged, the State bears the burden to establish age beyond a reasonable doubt." Id. at 77. Judge Vaidik concurred in affirming Staton's conviction, however, believing that the State had presented sufficient evidence to establish that Staton was at least eighteen years of age at the time he committed the charged offense. Id. at 78. We granted transfer. Staton v. State, 853 N.E.3d 470, No. 85S02-0605-CR-194, 2006 WL 2553485, 2006 Ind. LEXIS 424 (Ind. May 25, 2006).

Proof of Age

A. State's Burden of Proof

In McGowan, this Court stated that requiring the State to prove in every case elements of a charged offense such as "[a]ge and sex . . . is needless and defeating . . . when their existence is often evident, and for this reason the [S]tate carries a presumption in its favor as to both the age and sex of the accused, until that presumption is nullified by a properly raised motion to dismiss." 267 Ind. at 18, 366 N.E.2d at 1165. Justice DeBruler dissented, believing that if the legislature makes age an element of an offense, then due process of law requires the State to present evidence to prove the defendant's age at the time of the offense. Id. at 18, 366 N.E.2d at 1166. The same language from McGowan was echoed shortly after it was announced, but we have not referred to it in over twenty years.² Some have viewed McGowan as addressing only the age requirement for waiver of an alleged juvenile offender to adult court, rather than the elements of the crime. In any event, to the extent McGowan suggests that an element of the crime charged need not be proved, or that a defendant is required to file a motion to challenge age that is an element of a crime, it is overruled.

In her concurrence, Judge Vaidik correctly noted that this Court has addressed the issue of whether the State met its burden of proof as to the defendant's age in two child molestation cases, and in neither case had the defendant filed a motion to dismiss at the trial level. Staton, 843 N.E.2d at 77 (Vaidik, J., concurring in result) (citing Lewis v. State, 511 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind.1987); Altmeyer v. State, 519 N.E.2d 138 (Ind.1988)). The Court of Appeals has emphasized the importance of the State proving every element of a charged crime. See, e.g., Davidson v. State, 825 N.E.2d 414, 420 (Ind.Ct.App. 2005) ("Defendants have a constitutional guarantee to have every element of their offense proved beyond a reasonable doubt by the State. This principle is so essential to our system of justice it is referred to as `the fundamental principle.'"); Thurman v. State, 793 N.E.2d 318, 321 (Ind.Ct.App. 2003) ("It is black letter law that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that a conviction be supported by proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every element necessary to constitute the crime charged.").

We agree with Judge Vaidik that proof of age is required by the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause. A long and solid line of federal constitutional doctrine dictates this result. In Patterson v. New York, 432 U.S. 197, 211 n. 12, 97 S.Ct. 2319, 53 L.Ed.2d 281 (1977) the Court noted that "[t]he applicability of the reasonable-doubt standard" is dependent "on how a State defines the offense that is charged." In Indiana, the General Assembly has chosen to include the age of the defendant as an element of the crime of sexual misconduct with a minor. Therefore, the State had the burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Staton was at least eighteen years old at the time of the alleged offense. Seven years before McGowan, the Supreme Court of the United States held that in state criminal trials the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution "protects the accused against conviction except upon proof beyond a reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime with which he is charged." In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358, 364, 90 S.Ct. 1068, 25 L.Ed.2d 368 (1970); accord Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 315-316, 99 S.Ct. 2781, 61 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). This reasonable doubt standard "plays a vital role in the American scheme of criminal procedure." In re Winship, 397 U.S. at 363, 90 S.Ct. 1068. Among other things, "it is a prime instrument for reducing the risk of convictions resting on factual error." Id. This "bedrock, `axiomatic and elementary' [constitutional] principle," prohibits the State from using evidentiary presumptions in a jury charge that have the effect of relieving the State of its burden of persuasion beyond a reasonable doubt of every essential element of a crime. Id.; Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510, 520-524, 99 S.Ct. 2450, 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 698-701, 95 S.Ct. 1881, 44 L.Ed.2d 508 (1975); see also Morissette v. United States, 342 U.S. 246, 274-275, 72 S.Ct. 240, 96 L.Ed. 288 (1952). This view was most recently reaffirmed in Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466, 477, 120 S.Ct. 2348, 147 L.Ed.2d 435 (2000) (an accused is entitled "to `a jury determination that [he] is guilty of every element of the crime with which he is charged, beyond a reasonable doubt.'" (citing United States v. Gaudin, 515 U.S. 506, 510, 115 S.Ct. 2310, 132 L.Ed.2d 444 (1995))).

B. Sufficiency of Evidence

At trial, the State provided no conclusive evidence of Staton's age at the time of the offense. However, the State argues that the jury could find that Staton's age was established through E.G.'s testimony.

The standard of review of a jury verdict is well settled. When reviewing the sufficiency of evidence supporting a conviction, we neither reweigh the evidence nor judge the credibility of witnesses. Hardister v. State, 849 N.E.2d 563, 573 (Ind.2006). Rather, we look to the evidence most favorable to the verdict together with all reasonable inferences to be drawn from that evidence. Id. We will affirm the jury's verdict if there is substantial evidence of probative value supporting each element of the crime from which a reasonable trier of fact could have found the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wright v. State, 828 N.E.2d 904, 906 (Ind.2005).

After testifying that Staton's family and hers had known each other for as long as she could remember, E.G. testified to her date of birth, which made her fifteen years old in January 2004. E.G. was then asked

Q: Is [Staton] older than you?

A: Yes.

Q: Do you know how much older than you he is?

A: I imagine four years.

Q: Do you know what year he graduated?

A: I'd say a year before my sister, so '03 I'm thinking.

E.G. also testified that in January 2004, Staton was a freshman at Manchester College. The following exchange then took place:

Q: And was it your understanding that he was eighteen years old during that time?

A: Yes.

Q: And in January 2004,...