#Sophos home scanning exceptions trial

#Sophos home scanning exceptions trial

The trial court held a hearing on the State s motion during Korp s jury trial outside the presence of the jury.

3 The State charged Korp with child molesting as a Class C felony.2 The State filed a motion in limine seeking to prevent Korp from introducing evidence of Kenneth s criminal history namely, a 1996 guilty plea to sexual misconduct with a minor and a 2007 guilty plea to Class C felony child exploitation and two counts of Class B felony dealing in a controlled substance. denied that anyone else had touched her in an inappropriate way. was interviewed again at the Elkhart Child Advocacy Center, and she told her interviewer that Korp had humped on her and touched her private areas inappropriately.

also reported the incident to a Steuben County Deputy Sheriff and told him that the incident took place in a reclining chair in her grandmother s home. The examination revealed there was no semen or trauma. reported to one of the hospital nurses that her father had licked her genitals and put his penis in her genitals and her mouth. to Cameron Hospital in Angola for an examination. told Lynn that her father had licked her private area and put his penis in her mouth and in her private area. On the drive to Lynn s home in Angola, H.V. When Lynn arrived to pick up H.V., Kenneth told Lynn to call him when she arrived home to talk about something important. to Mishawaka to meet Lynn at their usual exchange point. told Kenneth that her father had been doing nasty things to her and humping her. After Kenneth told her that her mommy would not get mad, H.V. refused to answer, saying she could not tell because her mommy would get mad. stiffened up like a board when Korp touched her. 2 As Korp was preparing to leave Kenneth s home after dropping off H.V., Korp reached down to hug H.V. Although we do not know whether the Starke County Court Reporter is responsible for Volume II s missing cover page or the pages being out of order, we note that it has impeded our review of this case. 28(A)(7), and its pages are out of sequential order, App. Finally, Volume II of the transcript is lacking the required cover page, App. Additionally, although noted in the body of the text of the transcript, there are no header or footer notations indicating where a witness s direct, cross, or redirect examination begin. Specifically, the table of contents was included in the first volume of the transcript rather than a separately bound volume. 1 We pause to note several issues with the transcript on appeal. off at Kenneth s home and Kenneth would then transport H.V., sometimes along with the other children, to Mishawaka to exchange the children with Lynn. Due to the location of Kenneth s home in Lacrosse, Korp would occasionally drop H.V. At that time, Kenneth had custody of these children. Kenneth is Lynn s ex-husband, and Kenneth and Lynn have several children together. had spent the weekend at Korp s mother s home, Korp drove H.V. On January 29, 2006, after six-year-old H.V. occasionally visited with Korp at his mother s home in Knox, Indiana. Lynn has physical custody of H.V., but H.V. Facts and Procedural History1 Korp and Lynn Veden are H.V. Finding no abuse of discretion or violation of his right to present a defense, we affirm Korp s conviction. Korp also argues that exclusion of this evidence violated his right to present a defense. On appeal, Korp argues that the trial court abused its discretion by excluding evidence that Kenneth Veden, another man with access to H.V., had previously been convicted of sexual misconduct with a minor and child exploitation.

75C01-0605-FC-20 FebruMEMORANDUM DECISION - NOT FOR PUBLICATION VAIDIK, Judge Case Summary John Korp appeals his conviction for child molesting as a Class C felony arising out of allegations made by his daughter, H.V. 75A03-0810-CR-493 APPEAL FROM THE STARKE CIRCUIT COURT The Honorable Kim Hall, Judge Cause No. GOODWIN Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA JOHN KORP, Appellant-Defendant, vs. ZOELLER Attorney General of Indiana ANN L.

Feb 25 2009, 9:26 am CLERK of the supreme court, court of appeals and tax court ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: JUNE E. FILED Pursuant to Ind.Appellate Rule 65(D), this Memorandum Decision shall not be regarded as precedent or cited before any court except for the purpose of establishing the defense of res judicata, collateral estoppel, or the law of the case.