DAVID S. DELAGRANGE, Appellant (Defendant below),
STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff below)
Appeal from the Marion Superior Court, No. 49G03-1003-FC-15460. The Honorable Sheila A. Carlisle, Judge. On Petition to Transfer from the Indiana Court of Appeals, No. 49A04-1203-CR-144.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT: Michael C. Borschel, Fishers, Indiana.
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, J.T. Whitehead, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana.
Massa, Justice. Dickson, C.J., Rucker, David, and Rush, JJ., concur.
David Delagrange here appeals his convictions for child exploitation, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support them. We affirm.
Facts and Procedural History
On February 27, 2010, Delagrange left his home in Fort Wayne and drove approximately one hundred miles to the Castleton Square Mall in Indianapolis. He then wandered around for nearly eight hours trying to take " upskirt" photographs of women and girls as they were shopping. After he selected a particular victim, he would approach her from behind and try to inveigle his foot between her legs. Once in position, he would reach into his pocket and pull on a piece of fishing line attached to the cuff of his pants leg, thereby exposing a video camera attached to his shoe. By means of this procedure, Delagrange collected approximately seven minutes of actual images.
Unsurprisingly, Delagrange's unusual behavior attracted attention, and a store employee contacted police. After a brief confrontation, an officer arrested Delagrange and discovered his camera system. Detectives later identified four girls from the recorded images: K.V., T.G., and C.B., all aged seventeen, and A.K., aged 15. Those images depicted " the area under the skirt and between the legs" of the victims, but did not depict any " uncovered genitals." Ex. at 5.
The State charged Delagrange with four counts of Class C felony attempted child exploitation, ten counts of Class D felony voyeurism, and one count of Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement. By agreement of the parties, the trial court dismissed the voyeurism charges, but it denied Delagrange's motion to dismiss the attempted child exploitation charges. Delagrange successfully sought interlocutory appeal of that ruling, but the Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court and remanded the case.
Delagrange v. State, 951 N.E.2d 593, 596 (Ind.Ct.App. 2011), trans. denied 962 N.E.2d 649 (Ind. 2011) (table).
After trial, the jury convicted Delagrange of the remaining five counts. He appealed, arguing the evidence was insufficient to support his convictions for attempted child exploitation. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reasoned the child exploitation statute
demands the child be performing the sexual conduct, which herein required the child be exhibiting her uncovered genitals with the intent to satisfy someone's sexual desires. ...