From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Watkins v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jul 24, 1991
575 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. 1991)

Summary

finding the acts were "committed within moments of each other as part of one incident"

Summary of this case from Collins v. State

Opinion

No. 79S02-9107-CR-568.

July 24, 1991.

Appeal from the Tippecanoe Superior Court, Kenneth L. Thayer, J.

Susan K. Carpenter, Public Defender, David P. Freund, Deputy Public Defender, Indianapolis, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Geoff Davis, Deputy Atty. Gen., Office of Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.


The State charged appellant Arthur J. Watkins with child molesting, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(b), a class C felony (count I); attempted child molesting, Ind. Code § 35-41-5-1, 35-42-4-3(a), a class B felony (count II); and child molesting, Ind. Code § 35-42-4-3(a), a class B felony (count III) (West 1986). He was found guilty by a jury and also determined to be an habitual offender.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court except with respect to the conviction on count III. It held that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the conviction on that count. Watkins v. State (1991), Ind. App., 571 N.E.2d 1262.

All three counts alleged acts occurring during an incident between Watkins and his son J.W. on October 19, 1988. Count I alleged that Watkins fondled and touched J.W. with intent to arouse and satisfy his sexual desires. Count II alleged that Watkins attempted to commit child molesting by lying on top of J.W. while the child was nude and face down and that Watkins placed his penis around and against the anal area of J.W.

Watkins asserts that his convictions for these acts, committed within moments of each other as part of one incident, cannot stand under the rule announced in Bowling v. State (1990), Ind., 560 N.E.2d 658. He is correct.

We grant transfer. We reverse the conviction for child molesting as entered on count I. The decision of the Court of Appeals affirming the conviction and sentence on count II and reversing the conviction on count III is otherwise affirmed. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3).

SHEPARD, C.J., and DeBRULER, GIVAN, DICKSON and KRAHULIK, JJ., concur.


Summaries of

Watkins v. State

Supreme Court of Indiana
Jul 24, 1991
575 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. 1991)

finding the acts were "committed within moments of each other as part of one incident"

Summary of this case from Collins v. State

In Watkins v. State, 575 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. 1991), the defendant was charged and convicted of child molesting, defined as fondling and touching with intent to arouse and satisfy sexual desires, and with attempted child molesting as attempted sexual deviate conduct.

Summary of this case from Ward v. State

In Watkins, the defendant was convicted of child molesting/fondling and attempted child molesting/deviate sexual conduct. Our supreme court held the defendant's conviction for child molesting/fondling could not stand because the act supporting that conviction occurred within moments of the act supporting Watkins' conviction for attempted child molesting/sexual deviate conduct, as part of one incident.

Summary of this case from Acuna v. State
Case details for

Watkins v. State

Case Details

Full title:ARTHUR WATKINS, APPELLANT (DEFENDANT BELOW), v. STATE OF INDIANA, APPELLEE…

Court:Supreme Court of Indiana

Date published: Jul 24, 1991

Citations

575 N.E.2d 624 (Ind. 1991)

Citing Cases

Ward v. State

Accordingly, under the actual evidence test, there is no double jeopardy violation. In Watkins v. State, 575…

Vermillion v. State

Before Richardson supplied the current double-jeopardy standard, our Supreme Court held in a series of cases…