'Sexting' suspect in court next month
Toolbox
By Brent Curtis Staff Writer - Published: June 5, 2009
A 16-year-old Rutland boy who allegedly sent indecent photos of himself via cell phone to a 14-year-old girl will be arraigned on a criminal charge in Rutland District Court next month.
News of the charge was released just days after Gov. James Douglas signed a new law that provides prosecutors discretion to divert "sexting" cases from the criminal docket to the juvenile courts.
"I'm curious myself to see how it will be handled," said city Detective Michael Notte, who investigated the case.
At the moment, the 16-year-old, whom Notte declined to name because of his age, faces a misdemeanor charge of disseminating indecent material to a minor outside the presence of the minor — an offense that carries a penalty of up to a year in jail.
But it's possible that even though the alleged offense was committed prior to the new law's effective date July 1, the teenaged boy may be eligible for diversion to the juvenile system since his arraignment date isn't until later next month.
"If it was a year from this, this sort of case would be exactly the type of case the law was looking at," Rep. Margaret Flory, a member of the House Judiciary Committee, said Thursday. "But given the offense date and the effective date of the law, I don't know if it could be applied in this case."
Notte said the sexting case involved two teenagers who had dated in the past. However, he said, the indecent images sent to the girl were unsolicited and unwelcome.
"I think it was supposed to be more or less out of fun," Notte said of the teenage boy's motives. "I don't think these kids think about the consequences of their actions. Beyond any legal consequences, these images can be devastating if they end up on the Internet."
Rutland County prosecutors, who have been involved in judicial training all week, couldn't be reached on Thursday.
But Flory said even if Notte's case were eligible for diversion to the juvenile system, she wasn't sure prosecutors would choose to drop the criminal complaint.
"Generally, if there's no relationship between the two people involved in these cases, it's a different case — that's why we wanted to give prosecutors the discretion to decide," Flory said. "To me, it's more bothersome that someone could send something unsolicited to someone that they're not even in a relationship with."
brent.curtis@rutlandherald.com
16