In
a split decision, the Indiana Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a high
school principal who failed to immediately report allegations of child abuse
after receiving information that a minor student had been raped by another
student of the same age. The principal was convicted at the trial court level
but the Court of Appeals overturned the conviction. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed and ruled
that the evidence was sufficient to show that the principal’s four (4) hour
wait to call the child abuse hotline after learning of the alleged rape
violated the statute requiring “immediate” reporting of child abuse.
The
critical issue in this case was the court’s interpretation of “immediately” as
it is used in Indiana Code Section 31-33-5-1.
Citing ordinary dictionary definitions and legislative intent, the
Indiana Supreme Court conclude “immediately” means without any intermediate
intervention or appreciable delay. In upholding the conviction, the Indiana
Supreme Court evaluated (1) the identity of the person to whom the victim
reports abuse; (2) the impact of any delay in reporting the abuse to the
authorities might have on evidence of the alleged crime; (3) the length of time
between the victim's report and the report to the authorities; and (4) the
circumstances of any delay in reporting.
In support of its decision, the Indiana Supreme Court noted that
although the principal began an investigation into the allegations, he also
engaged in a number of other, unrelated, administrative activities prior to any
report being made.
This
ruling has clear application beyond a school setting and impact those in the
medical and mental health community who may become privy to this information
during treatment with patients and clients.
While the desire to conduct a preliminary investigation into the
veracity of reports or allegations of child abuse or neglect is understandable,
those whose duty to report are trigged by receipt of this information delay
making an immediate report at their own peril, even where an underlying crime may
not ultimately be charged.
Smith v. State, 18S02-1304-CR-297, 2014 WL 1258337 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2014)
Smith v. State, 18S02-1304-CR-297, 2014 WL 1258337 (Ind. Mar. 27, 2014)
If
you would like more information, please contact Joshua D. Hague.