## Facts

- Christopher Smith, a high school principal and mandated reporter, was told a 16-year-old student (G.G.) reported being raped during lunch by another 16-year-old student (S.M.) in a school bathroom.
- Smith and an assistant principal met with G.G., who repeated the allegation; G.G. was asked to provide a written statement.
- Multiple commissioned police officers were on school grounds serving as security officers at the time.
- Smith directed an associate principal to contact G.G.’s residential custodian (a youth facility under contract with the Department of Child Services) rather than contacting law enforcement or the Department of Child Services (DCS).
- The youth facility arranged transport for G.G. to a hospital; hospital staff notified police, who learned of the allegation from the hospital rather than from school officials.
- Smith questioned S.M. at school, conducted an internal inquiry, and attended to other administrative matters before any report to authorities.
- Approximately four hours elapsed between the initial allegation and law enforcement learning of it through the hospital.
- S.M. later pleaded guilty to raping G.G.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Smith had “reason to believe” G.G. was a victim of child abuse triggering a duty to report.
2. Whether peer-on-peer rape at school constitutes “child abuse” subject to mandatory reporting.
3. Whether a roughly four-hour delay satisfies the statutory requirement to report “immediately.”
4. Whether the reporting statute is unconstitutionally vague as applied, particularly regarding “immediately” and “reason to believe.”

## Decision

- The Indiana Supreme Court vacated the intermediate appellate reversal and affirmed Smith’s conviction and sentence.
- The Court held the evidence proved Smith had reason to believe G.G. was a victim of child abuse.
- The Court held student-on-student rape constitutes reportable child abuse under the mandatory reporting statutes.
- The Court held Smith did not report “immediately” because he delayed while conducting an internal inquiry and handling unrelated matters despite ready access to police.
- The Court rejected the vagueness challenge as applied, concluding the statute gave fair notice that Smith’s conduct was prohibited.

## Legal Principles

- A mandated reporter’s duty to report arises when facts and circumstances would cause a person of ordinary prudence to believe a child may be abused or neglected; certainty is not required.
- Credibility assessments and investigation are the responsibility of DCS or law enforcement; mandated reporters must report rather than investigate.
- “Immediately” means as soon as reasonably possible under the circumstances; unnecessary delay, especially when authorities are readily accessible, violates the statute.
- Sexual assault against a child is reportable child abuse regardless of whether the alleged perpetrator is another minor.
- A criminal statute is not void for vagueness as applied when its terms, in common usage and statutory context, provide fair notice and do not invite arbitrary enforcement.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed a school principal’s misdemeanor conviction for failing to immediately report a student’s rape allegation, holding that peer sexual assault is reportable child abuse, the “reason to believe” threshold is low and objective, internal investigation cannot delay reporting, and the reporting statute is not vague as applied.


Smith v. State, 8 N.E.3d 668 (Ind. 2014)