Untitled document.edited - 2023-11-07T074112.061
docx
keyboard_arrow_up
School
Rongo University College *
*We aren’t endorsed by this school
Course
MISC
Subject
Law
Date
Nov 24, 2024
Type
docx
Pages
2
Uploaded by SuperFoxPerson919
Dinh Loc Ta approached two young children, ages two and three, outside a Wichita movie
theater on July 19, 2009. The girls' moms accompanied them. Ta addressed the parents before
touching the kids. After asking the elder kid her name, he tucked her hair behind her ear when
she did not reply. He also patted her arm briefly. He then moved on to the younger child,
caressed her face, and rubbed her upper leg. The mothers observed these actions and reacted by
picking up the children.
Issues
This case hinges on whether Ta committed "lewd fondling or touching" as required under K.S.A.
21-3504(a)(3)(A). The secondary question is how to apply K.S.A. 22-3419(1)'s judgment of
acquittal criterion.
Holding
The Kansas Supreme Court ruled that the trial judge applied improper criteria to acquittal
motions. The State's case for aggravated indecent liberties with a juvenile by obscene fondling or
touching was not supported by the evidence presented to the Court (Pettys & Todd, 2022).
Opinion/Reasoning
The Court concluded that the trial judge misapplied acquittal petition standards. It told the Court
to assist the prosecution when defendants petition. The Court should decide whether the evidence
might prove each criminal element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court underscored that this is
not a discretionary decision. Next, the Court considered whether "lewd fondling or touching" to
arouse or satisfy sexual urges violated K.S.A. 21-3504(a) (3)(A) (Smith & Carolyn, 2020). The
Court ruled that criminal concepts are not punished and that an offense needs actus Reus and
mens rea. The Court decided Ta's hair, arms, and leg touches did not harm minors or reasonable
people. The State did not demonstrate indecent fondling or contact.
Concurring Opinion
The majority properly decides that this case's evidence is insufficient to convict on aggravated
indecent liberties with a child under Kansas Statute 21-3504(a)(3)(A). To prevent child abuse
and crime, the law must be enforced, especially for serious crimes. Dinh Loc Ta allegedly abused
two women's faces, hair, arms, and legs. Trial judge: These touchings seem harmless and do not
breach the statute's indecent fondling or touching requirement. Not all unwanted contact is
illegal. Fondling and child sexual contact are illegal. The interaction must be sexually unchaste,
licentious, morally lax, or indecent to offend a reasonable person to be convicted. Obscene
activity should be assessed objectively, not by the defendant's motivations. Crimes differ from
problematic defendants' admissions of views and desires. Kids must be fondled or harmed to
convict. Criminal laws must equitably protect defendants and victims. Despite significant
charges, innocence is assumed without proof.
Your Opinion
I concur with the Kansas Supreme Court's ruling. The Court's view of "lewd fondling or
touching" under K.S.A. 21-3504(a) (3) (A) supports the idea that the law should not penalize
ideas. Knowing the difference between illegal ideas and acts is crucial. Although unacceptable,
Ta's acts did not satisfy the statute's lewdness criterion.
Questions
While the Court correctly clarified the standard for ruling on motions for judgment of acquittal,
are there instances where the trial judge's discretion might still play a role in such decisions?
What factors should be considered to determine whether touching is lewd or not in cases
involving child indecency? How might the Court's decision impact future cases involving similar
charges, and what guidance does it provide for defining lewd fondling or touching?
Your preview ends here
Eager to read complete document? Join bartleby learn and gain access to the full version
- Access to all documents
- Unlimited textbook solutions
- 24/7 expert homework help