Abby & Libby - The Delphi Murders - Richard Allen Arrested - #180

Welcome to Websleuths!
Click to learn how to make a missing person's thread

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves
Status
Not open for further replies.

2022 Indiana Code
Title 35. Criminal Law and Procedure
Article 42. Offenses Against the Person
Chapter 4. Sex Crimes
35-42-4-9. Sexual Misconduct With a Minor​

Universal Citation: IN Code § 35-42-4-9 (2022)
PreviousNext
Sec. 9. (a) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to sexual intercourse or other sexual conduct (as defined in IC 35-31.5-2-221.5) with a child less than sixteen (16) years of age, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 5 felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 4 felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Level 1 felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, if it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon, if it results in serious bodily injury, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(b) A person at least eighteen (18) years of age who knowingly or intentionally performs or submits to any fondling or touching with a child less than sixteen (16) years of age with intent to arouse or to satisfy the sexual desires of either the child or the older person, commits sexual misconduct with a minor, a Level 6 felony. However, the offense is:
(1) a Level 5 felony if it is committed by a person at least twenty-one (21) years of age; and
(2) a Level 2 felony if it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force, while armed with a deadly weapon, or if the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.
(c) It is a defense that the accused person reasonably believed that the child was at least sixteen (16) years of age at the time of the conduct. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(d) It is a defense that the child is or has ever been married. However, this subsection does not apply to an offense described in subsection (a)(2) or (b)(2).
(e) It is a defense to a prosecution under this section if all the following apply:
(1) The person is not more than four (4) years older than the victim.
(2) The relationship between the person and the victim was a dating relationship or an ongoing personal relationship. The term "ongoing personal relationship" does not include a family relationship.
(3) The crime:
(A) was not committed by a person who is at least twenty-one (21) years of age;
(B) was not committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;
(C) was not committed while armed with a deadly weapon;
(D) did not result in serious bodily injury;
(E) was not facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge; and
(F) was not committed by a person having a position of authority or substantial influence over the victim.
(4) The person has not committed another sex offense (as defined in IC 11-8-8-5.2) (including a delinquent act that would be a sex offense if committed by an adult) against any other person.
(5) The person is not promoting prostitution (as defined in IC 35-45-4-4) with respect to the victim even though the person has not been charged with or convicted of the offense.
As added by P.L.79-1994, SEC.15. Amended by P.L.33-1996, SEC.9; P.L.216-1996, SEC.21; P.L.31-1998, SEC.8; P.L.266-2003, SEC.1; P.L.216-2007, SEC.45; P.L.158-2013, SEC.445; P.L.144-2018, SEC.28; P.L.40-2019, SEC.13.

 
Oh good. I get worked up when it is suggested that the girls were not SA’ed because it doesn’t fit a certain definition.
Well and he isn't charged with SA so I am not as concerned with a legal definition as I am the Defense trying to say he confessed to something that didn't happen because the autopsy didn't support it. The autopsy won't show all SA and so I just didn't like the suggestion that because he said he molested them buy hey the autopsy didn't show physical assault part of a SA then it didn't happen.
 
Well one thing that is an empirical fact is that he has been held for a long period of time in a prison (as opposed to jail), which in and of itself is constitutionally problematic.

A hearing was held about prison conditions and a ruling was made. The defense was found to have greatly exaggerated the prison conditions if not outright lied about them. That’s a fact too.

Edit: forgot something
 
Last edited:
Yes. IANAL, but I think forensic pathologists and social workers have differing usages wrt “sexual assault.”
Yes and social workers are trained to identify when a victim is describing sexual assault even if evidence of physical assault is not present.
Unfortunately Abby and Libby aren’t present to give their testimony.
But they were undressed and murdered. IMO this clearly points in one direction. As much as I hate this for them.
 
A hearing was held and a ruling was made. The defense was found to have greatly exaggerated the prison conditions if not outright lied about them.
If he thought guards were watching him, maybe they actually were because he was a risk for harming himself. If he wasn't being watched, then there would be issues that they were not ensuring he was not going to harm himself.
 
Well and he isn't charged with SA so I am not as concerned with a legal definition as I am the Defense trying to say he confessed to something that didn't happen because the autopsy didn't support it. The autopsy won't show all SA and so I just didn't like the suggestion that because he said he molested them buy hey the autopsy didn't show physical assault part of a SA then it didn't happen.
Yes. And even beyond this case, helping people understand that a person doesn’t have to be penetrated to be sexually assaulted.
 
I might have misread, but I think it said these statements were made between March and June, and that prison staff started doing most the supervising in early April. So, that would put his confessions to his wife right in that timeframe.
It stated mid March to June. Discovery delivered March 24th. Confessions April 4th to wife and mother. Smashed iPad. Motion for Emergency Transfer on April 5th. Guards put at doors beginning of April. More confessions continued.
JMO and recollection
I wonder how often defense team visited him. From all the motions it doesn’t sound like they were frequent visitors.
KA didn’t see him until May? This seems opposite to what was stated in FM.
Moooooo
 
Yes and social workers are trained to identify when a victim is describing sexual assault even if evidence of physical assault is not present.
Unfortunately Abby and Libby aren’t present to give their testimony.
But they were undressed and murdered. IMO this clearly points in one direction. As much as I hate this for them.
When I was 9 or 10 I asked my mom what “rape” meant and she said “It’s when someone makes you take off all your clothes.” To this day, I think of that —being undressed or forced to undress— as SA. No idea of legal definitions, of course, moo.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Staff online

Members online

Online statistics

Members online
135
Guests online
2,280
Total visitors
2,415

Forum statistics

Threads
605,379
Messages
18,186,338
Members
233,339
Latest member
unconscous
Back
Top