Kristian S Horman was arrested

[winterrose]

Well,we probably won't know more till tomorrow anyway,doubt we'll hear anything tonight.

 

[Kimster]

:bedtime:

Please note that we'll reopen this thread for everyone tomorrow! :grouphug:

 

[BeanE]

Good morning, everyone. I'm only half here, but I'm going to open the thread so you all can continue the discussions.

Remember, no discussion of any family members - only Kristian. Please help the mods keep the thread open. If you happen to see a post mentioning a family member, please do not reply! :nono: Just hit the alert button, or PM a mod.

Many thanks for all the mod support and kind words you've been sending our way. It's very much appreciated. You all are just the best!

Thanks!
BeanE
Mod

 

[LaLaw2000]

I've not been posting much but have kept up with all the threads.

I just wanted to say that we really do not know just how much contact, if any, this uncle might have had with Kyron. Could have been alot or none at all. LE's ears probably did perk up quite a bit when they uncovered this information as they had stressed Kyron's disappearance was an isolated incident; usually meaning it was either within the family or someone Kyron knew.

If the uncle had been out on bond pending the bench trial, then he was probably just remanded into custody on the 16th upon conviction. Usually there will be a PSI done prior to sentencing. I have seen the paperwork and do not see how many years the uncle was sentenced to (if sentenced at all yet). He would be a state Department of Corrections inmate with this type of charge. It will be several days before this information will show up, IMO.

This is another bizarre twist in little Kyron's case. I honestly believe it is a tossup as to whether or not it relates to Kyron.

JMO

 

[4BB]

What exactly is a stipulated trial? Would that mean that there was no contest on the part of the accused and the trial is merely to document evidence and plea in the court docket?
I've seen that type of trial but I don't know if thats whats its called. TIA

 

[Garden Variety]

What exactly is a stipulated trial? Would that mean that there was no contest on the part of the accused and the trial is merely to document evidence and plea in the court docket?
I've seen that type of trial but I don't know if thats whats its called. TIA

A legal stipulation is an agreement between the parties as to a fact or facts. In this case that would be an agreement on a set of facts between the prosecution and the defense.

 

[BeanE]

One more time:

DO
*NOT*
DISCUSS
KYRON'S
FAMILY



* * * No more warnings - Timeouts start now * * *​

Kristian only. Period.

BeanE
Mod

 

[Garden Variety]

Kristian has a Biblical name too, with a contemporary K twist. I wonder what, if anything, this tells about his background and upbringing?

That he is apparently Kyron's uncle, and was sentenced for child molestation charges while there is an ongoing search for his missing nephew raises some interesting questions.

Is this yet another tile in the complex mosaic?

World class sleuthing, those of you who discovered the sentencing, and those of you who made the K connections. Most impressive.

 

[debs]

I'm sure over the past 7 years, this man has traveled to visit people he knows. Hard to tell how many children he may have victimized. Hard to know the residual damage this sort of abuse leaves a child with. It can haunt for life.

 

[CountryGirl]

No, he was convicted 6-16-10 at the stipulated trial.

04-21-2010 ORDER SETTING Order Setting Sentencing
1pm Dept 9 Judge Castleberry 06-16-2010JC

Maybe someone from WA can explain why an order setting sentencing for 6/16/10 was done on 4/21/10 if he hadn't been convicted? How does that work?

 

[cakegirl0905]

This is another bizarre twist in little Kyron's case. I honestly believe it is a tossup as to whether or not it relates to Kyron.

JMO

Absolutely. If it isn't related, it is certainly a stroke of horrible luck for the family.

I don't know if it is related, but the coincidence is shocking to me. What are the chances?

 

[Adrienne37]

I would imagine this information would play very much into why this family hasn't been more involved with the media. JMO.

 

[Calliope]

No force.



The phrase statutory rape is a term used in some legal jurisdictions to describe sexual activities where one participant is below the age required to legally consent to the behavior.[1] Although it usually refers to adults engaging in sex with minors under the age of consent,[1] the age at which individuals are considered competent to give consent to sexual conduct, it is a generic term, and very few jurisdictions use the actual term "statutory rape" in the language of statutes.[2] Different jurisdictions use many different statutory terms for the crime, such as "sexual assault," "rape of a child," "corruption of a minor," "carnal knowledge of a minor," "unlawful carnal knowledge", or simply "carnal knowledge." Statutory rape differs from forcible rape in that overt force or threat need not be present. The laws presume coercion, because a minor or mentally challenged adult is legally incapable of giving consent to the act.

The term statutory rape generally refers to sex between an adult and a sexually mature minor past the age of puberty. Sexual relations with a prepubescent child, generically called "child molestation," is typically treated as a more serious crime.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statutory_rape

Interesting wikipedia article, however he was charged under this statute:

http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9a/9a.44.089.html

(1) A person is guilty of child molestation in the third degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

(2) Child molestation in the third degree is a class C felony.

-----------

There is NOTHING in the statute under which he was convicted that says "no force".

-----------

What some might call "statutory rape" would be this statute:

http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9a/9a.44.079.html

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

(2) Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony.

----------------
Here are the definitions of the above per statute:

As used in this chapter:

(1) "Sexual intercourse" (a) has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight, and

(b) Also means any penetration of the vagina or anus however slight, by an object, when committed on one person by another, whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex, except when such penetration is accomplished for medically recognized treatment or diagnostic purposes, and

(c) Also means any act of sexual contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex.

(2) "Sexual contact" means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.

http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9a/9a.44.010.html

------------

I'd like to respond to a couple of others, who answered a post I made about him making a plea.

I was mistaken in thinking he'd pleaded guilty to the charge; I misread the docket. However I found this interesting:




However, an agreement to accept a bench trial on stipulated facts is intended by the parties to be an enforceable contract. In Washington there is a dearth of cases analyzing possible undercutting of the recommendations to be made by a deputy prosecutor after conviction in a stipulated facts trial. Thus, an analogy to cases discussing a potential breach of plea agreements is reasonable.

The State must adhere to the terms of a plea agreement by recommending the agreed sentence to the court. n3 Although the recommendation need not be made enthusiastically, the prosecutor's conduct at that sentencing hearing may not undercut the terms of the agreement.

<snip>

We conclude that while this was not a ringing endorsement of the recommendation, the prosecutor confined herself to the matters that concerned the court and did not advocate for rejection of the SSOSA or undercut the recommendation. Consequently, the State did not breach the stipulated trial agreement.

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eDIT.SWNa.aadj.ebjX&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

(there were a number of other examples I found that make it clear a stipulated bench trial often involves an agreement between defense and prosecution to reduce charges or apply specific recommendations at sentencing)
-----------------

So while agreeing to a stipulated bench trial may not be a guilty plea, it IS a contract and would involve concessions by the prosecution to include charges and/or recommended sentence, while preserving the right of the person to appeal the decision. Given the two above statutes, it is possible that he indeed did "plead" to a lesser charge.

I did not see what the original charge was as listed on the case file (if someone could point that out, I'd appreciate it). He well could have been initially charged with "Rape of a child in the third degree" and the agreement in the stipulated bench trial was to instead charge him with "Child molestation in the third degree".

As to the comment that the State would not reduce charges from rape to statutory rape, I've provided the statutes that show he wasn't convicted of what is commonly known as 'statutory rape'. And given the specific definitions of 'sexual contact' and 'sexual intercourse' within each statute above, the State may well have made the agreement to reduce the charge if there was no evidence of sexual intercourse or they felt they could not prove same.




JMO, etc.

 

[SoCalSleuth]

Interesting wikipedia article, however he was charged under this statute:

http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9a/9a.44.089.html

(1) A person is guilty of child molestation in the third degree when the person has, or knowingly causes another person under the age of eighteen to have, sexual contact with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

(2) Child molestation in the third degree is a class C felony.

-----------

There is NOTHING in the statute under which he was convicted that says "no force".

-----------

What some might call "statutory rape" would be this statute:

http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9a/9a.44.079.html

(1) A person is guilty of rape of a child in the third degree when the person has sexual intercourse with another who is at least fourteen years old but less than sixteen years old and not married to the perpetrator and the perpetrator is at least forty-eight months older than the victim.

(2) Rape of a child in the third degree is a class C felony.

----------------
Here are the definitions of the above per statute:

As used in this chapter:

(1) "Sexual intercourse" (a) has its ordinary meaning and occurs upon any penetration, however slight, and

(b) Also means any penetration of the vagina or anus however slight, by an object, when committed on one person by another, whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex, except when such penetration is accomplished for medically recognized treatment or diagnostic purposes, and

(c) Also means any act of sexual contact between persons involving the sex organs of one person and the mouth or anus of another whether such persons are of the same or opposite sex.

(2) "Sexual contact" means any touching of the sexual or other intimate parts of a person done for the purpose of gratifying sexual desire of either party or a third party.

http://law.justia.com/washington/codes/title9a/9a.44.010.html

------------

I'd like to respond to a couple of others, who answered a post I made about him making a plea.

I was mistaken in thinking he'd pleaded guilty to the charge; I misread the docket. However I found this interesting:




However, an agreement to accept a bench trial on stipulated facts is intended by the parties to be an enforceable contract. In Washington there is a dearth of cases analyzing possible undercutting of the recommendations to be made by a deputy prosecutor after conviction in a stipulated facts trial. Thus, an analogy to cases discussing a potential breach of plea agreements is reasonable.

The State must adhere to the terms of a plea agreement by recommending the agreed sentence to the court. n3 Although the recommendation need not be made enthusiastically, the prosecutor's conduct at that sentencing hearing may not undercut the terms of the agreement.

<snip>

We conclude that while this was not a ringing endorsement of the recommendation, the prosecutor confined herself to the matters that concerned the court and did not advocate for rejection of the SSOSA or undercut the recommendation. Consequently, the State did not breach the stipulated trial agreement.

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw...=eDIT.SWNa.aadj.ebjX&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

(there were a number of other examples I found that make it clear a stipulated bench trial often involves an agreement between defense and prosecution to reduce charges or apply specific recommendations at sentencing)
-----------------

So while agreeing to a stipulated bench trial may not be a guilty plea, it IS a contract and would involve concessions by the prosecution to include charges and/or recommended sentence, while preserving the right of the person to appeal the decision. Given the two above statutes, it is possible that he indeed did "plead" to a lesser charge.

I did not see what the original charge was as listed on the case file (if someone could point that out, I'd appreciate it). He well could have been initially charged with "Rape of a child in the third degree" and the agreement in the stipulated bench trial was to instead charge him with "Child molestation in the third degree".

As to the comment that the State would not reduce charges from rape to statutory rape, I've provided the statutes that show he wasn't convicted of what is commonly known as 'statutory rape'. And given the specific definitions of 'sexual contact' and 'sexual intercourse' within each statute above, the State may well have made the agreement to reduce the charge if there was no evidence of sexual intercourse or they felt they could not prove same.




JMO, etc.

This is a statutory rape statute. It does not mention force because that--sexual contact by force-is set forth in other statutes. IE If force was involved he would have been charged with the statute that deals with sexual contact via force or lack of consent.

 

[gwenabob]

04-21-2010 ORDER SETTING Order Setting Sentencing
1pm Dept 9 Judge Castleberry 06-16-2010JC

Maybe someone from WA can explain why an order setting sentencing for 6/16/10 was done on 4/21/10 if he hadn't been convicted? How does that work?

Calendaring. They are noting that a date was set for the proceeding.

 

[BeanE]

Please start a thread in the Jury Room if you'd to discuss whether or not force is involved in statutory rape. It's a complex issue, beyond the scope of Kyron's forum and case.

Please return to topic.

Thanks,
BeanE
Mod

 

[Calliope]

This is a statutory rape statute. It does not mention force because that--sexual contact by force-is set forth in other statutes. IE If force was involved he would have been charged with the statute that deals with sexual contact via force or lack of consent.

NONE of the statutes related to sexual crimes against children, either as rape OR molestation and regardless of the age of the victim mention force, because sexual contact (of any type) with a child is presumed to be forced/coerced as they are unable to consent.

 

[Calliope]

Please start a thread in the Jury Room if you'd to discuss whether or not force is involved in statutory rape. It's a complex issue, beyond the scope of Kyron's forum and case.

Please return to topic.

Thanks,
BeanE
Mod

Hi.

The reason I think it applies to this thread is that there seems to be some who feel Kyron was not in danger from this person OR that he wasn't involved in Kyron's disappearance (or that this is related in any way) because of the age of the victim and that "no force" was used.

I am simply showing that there is nothing to indicate that there was no force (or no coercion). That's why I felt it relevant to this thread. IMO, it's an erroneous assumption to believe he did not force (or coerce) this child to have sexual contact, and regardless of that, if the child is under the legal age of consent, force/coercion is presumed. Thanks.

 

[Calliope]

Additionally, it really disturbs me that some here seem to be arguing that this child consented to what he did to her.

 

[Soulmagent]

NONE of the statutes related to sexual crimes against children, either as rape OR molestation and regardless of the age of the victim mention or imply force or lack thereof.

I was only putting the statutory rape for reveiw.. A statutory rape charge in VA means the act itself would be legal if the said person was old enough to consent. He was not charged with statutory I know this.

But really his charge could have been for encouraging two teens to have sex and not actualy commiting a sex act himself. Or not stopping them from having sex. I doubt it but from the defined class three child molestation it could have been that.

I dont think that because of all the ordered testing.