## Facts

- David S. Delagrange drove from Fort Wayne to a shopping mall in Indianapolis and spent nearly eight hours attempting to take “upskirt” recordings of women and girls.
- He used a concealed system: a video camera attached to his shoe that he deployed by pulling fishing line attached to his pants cuff.
- He approached victims from behind and tried to position his foot between their legs to record under their skirts.
- The recordings captured the area under the skirt and between the legs but did not depict uncovered genitals.
- Four minors were identified in the recordings: three seventeen-year-old girls and one fifteen-year-old girl.
- Mall personnel reported his conduct to police; he was arrested, and the camera system was discovered.
- The State pursued four counts of attempted child exploitation; a jury convicted Delagrange on those counts (and on resisting law enforcement). The Court of Appeals later reversed the attempted child-exploitation convictions on sufficiency grounds before transfer.

## Issues

1. Whether the child-exploitation statute requires proof that the child intentionally “exhibited” uncovered genitals with the intent to satisfy or arouse sexual desires, as opposed to focusing on the defendant’s conduct and purpose.
2. Whether evidence was sufficient to support attempted child-exploitation convictions when the recordings showed only clothed genital areas and no uncovered genitals.
3. Whether Delagrange’s conduct constituted a “substantial step” toward committing child exploitation, permitting intent to be proven by circumstantial evidence.

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals’ reversal, and affirmed the trial court’s judgment reinstating the attempted child-exploitation convictions.
- The court held the statute does not hinge on the child victim’s subjective intent to arouse sexual desires; it targets the defendant’s exploitation of children in sexualized depictions.
- The court concluded a reasonable jury could infer Delagrange intended to capture images of minors’ uncovered genitals and took a substantial step toward that result, even though the recordings did not show uncovered genitals.

## Legal Principles

- Attempt requires proof of intent to commit the charged offense and conduct constituting a substantial step that strongly corroborates that intent.
- For child exploitation based on depictions of “sexual conduct,” the “intent to satisfy or arouse sexual desires” element need not be proven as the child victim’s mental state when the child is an unsuspecting subject of the depiction.
- Evidence may be sufficient for attempted child exploitation even when the completed offense did not occur (e.g., no uncovered genitals captured), if circumstantial evidence supports intent and substantial-step conduct.
- Repeated, planned conduct; specialized concealment or equipment; proximity and targeting of the proscribed depiction; and the nature of images obtained may collectively support an inference of intent and substantial step.

## Conclusion

The Indiana Supreme Court held that attempted child exploitation can be proven where a defendant deliberately engineers and executes surreptitious upskirt recording of minors, because the statute’s intent element does not require attributing sexual intent to the child and a jury may infer the defendant’s intent and substantial step despite failure to capture uncovered genitals.


Delagrange v. State, 5 N.E.3d 354 (Ind. 2014)