Webb v. State

• Decision Date: 13 August 1991
• Docket Number: No. 49A02-8901-CR-00029,49A02-8901-CR-00029
• Parties: Denise C. WEBB, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
• Court: Indiana Appellate Court

Page 1066

575 N.E.2d 1066

Denise C. WEBB, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).

No. 49A02-8901-CR-00029.

Court of Appeals of Indiana,

Second District.

Aug. 13, 1991.

Michael G. Ruppert, Ruge & Ruppert, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Gene Worden, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

SHIELDS, Presiding Judge.

Denise C. Webb appeals her conviction of prostitution, a class A misdemeanor. ¹

We affirm.

ISSUES

Webb presents several arguments on appeal which we restate as follows:

1. Whether Webb's conduct is regulated by Indiana's obscene performance statute, and thus cannot be prosecuted as prostitution;

2. Whether the statutory definition of "deviate sexual conduct" is unconstitutionally vague;

3. Whether the prostitution statute is unconstitutionally overbroad;

4. Whether the evidence is insufficient to sustain Webb's conviction; and

5. Whether Webb was entrapped.

FACTS

As part of an Indianapolis Police Department investigation of the Dulcet modeling and escort service, informant Brian Barnes telephoned Dulcet on June 11, 1987, arranging for a "fantasy session" in his room at the Hilton Hotel in downtown Indianapolis. Webb arrived at the hotel with a driver, to whom Barnes paid $150. During the "session," Barnes twice attempted to persuade Webb to permit him to perform cunnilingus on her in exchange for which he would pay her an additional $200. She declined both offers. She did, however, perform a "bed dance," in which she danced over Barnes while disrobing. Barnes testified Webb subsequently inserted a flesh-colored penis-shaped object, referred to alternatively as a "dildoe" and a "special vibrator," into her anus in exchange for an additional payment of $50.

DECISION

I. OBSCENE PERFORMANCE STATUTE

Claiming her alleged conduct falls within the prohibitions of both the prostitution ² and obscene performance ³ statutes, Webb argues the separate criminal statutes are in para materia, and an "irreconcilable conflict" exists between them because only the obscene performance statute provides "a framework for determining if a performance which involves sexual conduct--but no sexual contact--is or is not protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." Appellant's Brief at 25. Because this "irreconcilable conflict" exists, Webb continues, the more detailed statute prevails as to the subject matter it covers. Hence Webb concludes, given the nature of her alleged criminal conduct, her conviction for prostitution is contrary to law because she should have been prosecuted only under the more specific and detailed obscene performance statute.

Webb's argument is innovative but unavailing. The statutes are not in conflict. Both the prostitution statute and the obscene performance statute prohibit certain conduct; neither statute explicitly authorizes any conduct proscribed by the other. A conflict between the statutes is not created by the possibility the overlapping proscriptions may give rise to double jeopardy issues or by the inclusion of an obscenity provision in only one of the two statutes.

II. VAGUENESS

Webb argues the statutory scheme under which she was convicted is void for vagueness because it does not provide adequate notice the sexual conduct required to support a charge of prostitution need not involve bodily contact with another person.

When the constitutionality of a statute is challenged, we begin with a presumption of validity. A penal statute must provide individuals with adequate notice of the consequences of contemplated conduct. If individuals of ordinary intelligence must guess at its meaning or would reasonably differ as to its application, the statute is void for vagueness. Van Sant v. State (1988), Ind.App., 523 N.E.2d 229, 233.

Under Indiana law, prostitution must have as its object sexual intercourse, deviate sexual conduct, or the fondling of another person's genitals. IC 35-45-4-2. Webb was charged with agreeing to perform deviate sexual conduct for money; the specific conduct involved was an act of anal self-insertion with a physical object.

"Deviate sexual conduct" is defined in relevant part as "the penetration of the sex organ or anus of a person by an object." IC 35-41-1-9 (1988). Neither the definition of deviate sexual conduct nor the statute proscribing prostitution ⁴ requires the participation of more than one person in the act of penetration. Cf. People v. Greene (1981), N.Y.Crim.Ct., 110 Misc.2d 40, 441 N.Y.S.2d 636 (prostitution statute specifying sexual conduct "with another person" held to exclude "autoerotic" conduct).

The prostitution statute places Webb and other persons on notice an agreement to perform deviate sexual conduct for money is prohibited; the statutory definition of deviate sexual conduct specifically includes anal insertion. Read together, the statutes are sufficiently clear to permit persons "[to] reasonably steer between lawful and unlawful conduct, with confidence that they know what [the statutes'] terms prohibit." American Booksellers Ass'n., Inc. v. Hudnut (1984), S.D.Ind., 598 F.Supp. 1316, 1339, aff'd, (1985), 7th Cir., 771 F.2d 323, aff'd, (1986), 475 U.S. 1001, 106 S.Ct. 1172, 89 L.Ed.2d 291.

III. OVERBREADTH

Webb argues the prostitution statute is unconstitutionally overbroad as applied to the facts of her case because her conduct is presumptively protected by the first amendment as evidenced by the legislature's enacting the obscenity and pornography statute, IC 35-49-1-1 et seq., (1988) which establishes certain procedural safeguards and substantive standards to determine if sexual performances can be penalized.

The State argues Webb's conduct, as a matter of law, is obscene and, therefore, the argument her conduct is protected by the first amendment is without merit. In support of its argument the State relies upon Sedelbauer v. State (1984), Ind.App., 462 N.E.2d 244, transfer denied; Richards v. State (1984), Ind.App., 461 N.E.2d 744, transfer denied; Sedelbauer v. State (1983), Ind.App., 455 N.E.2d 1159, transfer denied; and Owens v. State (1981), Ind.App., 424 N.E.2d 169, transfer denied. The Sedelbauer cases and the Richards case involve charges of distributing obscene material brought under IC 35-30-10.1-2 (1982) (repealed 1983), recodified at IC 35-49-3-1 (1988). In each case a jury found the materials in question to be obscene, applying the standards elucidated in Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15, 24, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2614, 37 L.Ed.2d 419, and incorporated in IC 35-30-10.1-1(c) (1982) (repealed 1983), recodified at IC 35-49-2-1 (1988). None of these cases speak of "obscenity as a matter of law", and none hold that something may be considered obscene before it has been evaluated by a trier of fact under the Miller standards. In these cases the court exercised the "ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary." Miller v. California (1973), 413 U.S. 15, 25, 93 S.Ct. 2607, 2615, 37 L.Ed.2d 419. As the United States Supreme Court said in Jenkins v. Georgia (1974), 418 U.S. 153, 160, 94 S.Ct. 2750, 2754, 41 L.Ed.2d 642:

But all of this does not lead us to agree with the Supreme Court of Georgia's apparent conclusion that the jury's verdict against appellant virtually precluded all further appellate review of appellant's assertion that his exhibition of the film was protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments. Even though questions of appeal to the "prurient interest" or of patent offensiveness are "essentially questions of fact," it would be a serious misreading of Miller to conclude that juries have unbridled discretion in determining what is "patently offensive." Not only did we there say that "the First Amendment values applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary," 413 U.S., at 25 , 37 L Ed 2d 419, but we made it plain that under that holding "no one will be subject to prosecution for the sale or exposure of obscene materials unless these materials depict or describe patently offensive 'hard core' sexual conduct...." Id., at 25 , 37 L Ed 2d 419.

Thus "obscenity as a matter of law" exists only in the sense that an appellate court determines the jury's verdict falls within constitutional boundaries. It certainly does not exist in the sense that it is used by the State, i.e., that certain conduct is obscene without proof that it meets the Miller test.

Owens also does not support the State's argument. In Owens this court affirmed a conviction for prostitution by genital fondling as proscribed by IC 35-45-4-2(2). However, contrary to the State's characterization, Owens does not hold prostitution--even where the sexual conduct involves actual contact--is beyond the scope of the protection afforded by the first amendment; that issue was not raised.

In determining the issue of overbreadth we are mindful Webb's conduct was a non-obscene performance. Webb was convicted of prostitution without a determination her conduct was obscene. Without that determination we are required to assume Webb's conduct was not obscene. People v. Freeman (1988), 46 Cal.3d 419, 423, 758 P.2d 1128, 1130, 250 Cal.Rptr. 598, 599, cert. denied (1989), 489 U.S. 1017, 109 S.Ct. 1133, 103 L.Ed.2d 194; see Fort Wayne Books, Inc. v. Indiana (1989), 489 U.S. 46, 109 S.Ct. 916, 925, 103 L.Ed.2d 34, 48. Then, Webster's Third New International Dictionary, 1976, defines "performance" as a public presentation or exhibition while an Indiana statute defines "performance" as "any play, motion picture, dance, or other exhibition or presentation, whether pictured, animated, or live, performed before an audience of one (1) or more persons." IC 35-49-1-7 (1988). Accord People v. Greene (1981), N.Y.Crim.Ct., 110...