What really constitutes Gross Sexual Impostion on a juvenile?


Diabloii.Net Member
This infuriates me:

Fondling of a 13 year old

In Ohio, one has to use force to be tried with the felony. The little boy just turned 13.

To me, this law is completely bogus. Any fondling, no matter what age and especially under the age of consent, should be tried as a felony.

What are your thoughts?
Gah, the site requires subscription, or at least subjecting yourself to spammification to read the article. Can you quote some choice bits of it so we get the gist?


Diabloii.Net Member
Do you want to give me your username and password for the site, because I can't access it. How about posting the text in a post?


Diabloii.Net Member
GAh..lemme copy/paste it:

Felony sex charge dismissed in groping of boy

Judge finds no evidence of force in groping of boy; man has history

By Phil Trexler

Beacon Journal staff writer

A judge threw out a felony sex charge Tuesday, ruling that prosecutors had no evidence an Akron man used force when he fondled a boy inside the Cuyahoga Falls Natatorium.

Summit County Common Pleas Judge Jane Bond made the ruling on a defense motion immediately after opening statements from an assistant prosecutor and without hearing any testimony from the boy.

Bryan W. Puckett, 30, went on trial Tuesday accused of gross sexual imposition, abduction, importuning and sexual imposition.

He was accused of groping a 13-year-old boy in a natatorium shower in January. Ten years ago, he was convicted of a similar offense at a YMCA.

``I don't quite see force or a threat of force here,'' the judge told attorneys before issuing her decision to dismiss the gross sexual imposition charge.

Bond was hearing the case herself after Puckett waived his right to a jury trial.

Her decision to dismiss the felony sex charge appeared to trigger a chain-reaction that prompted attorneys to reach a plea agreement in midtrial.

Following a break, Puckett entered what is known as an Alford plea to a misdemeanor charge sexual imposition, meaning he denies the allegations but acknowledges prosecutors have enough evidence to convict. The plea came after prosecutors agreed to dismiss the remaining abduction and importuning charges. The boy did not testify.

Puckett is scheduled to be sentenced May 25. He faces a maximum sentence of six months in jail. He agreed to a provision that he be labeled a habitual sexual offender, meaning he must register his address with authorities for the next 20 years.

``My reaction is probably not printable right now,'' the boy's mother said afterward. She said nothing ``short of castration'' is the appropriate sentence for Puckett, who left court free on bond to await sentencing.

The gross sexual imposition charge carried a maximum penalty of 18 months in prison.

Tuesday was the second time Puckett was convicted of molesting a young boy. In 1995, when he was a YMCA swim coach in the Falls, Puckett was convicted of gross sexual imposition for fondling a 12-year-old boy. He served two years in prison and is a registered sex offender.

Defense attorney Tom Adgate said the timing of Bond's ruling -- made before any witnesses testified -- was unusual, but that she made the correct ruling under Ohio law in dismissing the felony sex charge.

``All the judge did was apply the law to the facts. You couldn't convict him on those facts,'' he said.

Bond declined comment after the hearing.

Assistant Prosecutor Jennie Shuki said in her opening statement that the boy and Puckett were alone in the shower and that Puckett touched the boy three times. Puckett had also touched himself, she said.

She said Puckett was standing next to the boy with his arm leaning against a wall when he confronted the boy and the boy ``panicked and didn't know what to do.''

Puckett then invited the boy to a private shower adjacent to the open shower they were in, she said.

``He was scared. He was teary-eyed,'' Shuki said in opening statements.

Two workers testified that the boy emerged from the shower distraught, hysterical, nervous and shaking. Puckett was arrested before he could leave the natatorium.

Adgate argued before giving his opening statement that the abduction, gross sexual imposition and importuning charges should be dismissed for lack of evidence or proof of force.

He contended the state's case was ``offensively'' overindicted and that the allegations -- if one believes the boy -- constituted only the misdemeanor charge of sexual imposition.

Shuki contended that Puckett's height (6-foot-2) and weight (more than 200 pounds) in comparison to the boy (about 5-foot-5, 130 pounds) constituted a threat of force.

In cases of gross sexual imposition where a victim is 13 years or older, prosecutors must prove the defendant used force or a threat of force. No such provision is necessary for children younger than 13.


Diabloii.Net Member
Section 2907.05 of the Revised Code Annotated of Ohio describes the crime of Gross Sexual Imposition and provides in relevant part:

A No person shall have sexual contact with another, not the spouse of the offender; cause another, not the spouse of the offender, to have sexual contact with the offender; or cause two or more persons to have sexual contact with the offender when any of the following apply:

(1) The offender purposely compels the other person, or one of the other persons, to submit by force or threat of force.

(2) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the judgment or control of the other person or of one of the other persons by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.

(3) The offender knows that the judgment or control of the other person or of one of the other persons is substantially impaired as a result of the influence of any drug or intoxicant administered to the other person with the other person's consent for the purpose of any kind of medical or dental examination, treatment, or surgery.

(4) The other person, or one of the other persons, is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of that person.

(5) The ability of the other person to resist or consent or the ability of one of the other persons to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the ability to resist or consent of the other person or of one of the other persons is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

So basically, if you have sexual contact with another person and use force, drug them, know they are inebriated, they are under 13, or they are retarded, you committed the crime. The boy was 13 and there was no proof of force. The judge made the right ruling.

There are also almost certainly lesser charges he was convicted of. Probably a misdemeanor of lewdness with a child or something to that effect.



Diabloii.Net Member
well if force is required for that level of crime, that is what that level of crime is.

It's like the manslaughter/murder difference. The prosecution didn't pick the right charges to bring him up on. They screwed up.
It sounds to me like Ohio needs to take another look at their legislation on the matter. As awful as the result of this case sounds, I agree with Garbad that the appropriate decision was made by the judge in this case based on what happened and the legislation I've seen.
Lord_Shinnok said:
I'm enraged. just tell me what to be enraged at and ill go crazy. i'm a otfer :thumbsup:
You don't know what to be enraged at? Look carefully at paragraph two of the article. Here:

Summit County Common Pleas Judge Jane Bond made the ruling on a defense motion immediately after opening statements from an assistant prosecutor and without hearing any testimony from the boy.
Dude. James Bond's mamma protected a nasty man from prosecution. No wonder little Jimmy ran off to England to become a spy.
I think some of you guys are missing the point. Zodiac didn't ask what the law was, she said she thought it was bunk and asked what you thought about it. "The judge did the right thing according to the law" doesn't answer the question "What do you think about this law?"


Diabloii.Net Member
I agree with the law. Fondling a kid might not be the best thing, but then again, you're not actually raping the kid.

I remember some guy at Disneyworld got fired for "fondling" kids. He was in a huge Goofy suit, and the pictures they had of him "fondling" kids (say, his paw on some girl's breast) weren't very convincing to me. Heck, the suit's paw covered 1/4 of the kids' body; you couldn't possibly put your arm around someone and not be touching their chest with that suit. I'm not saying he's innocent (nor guilty), but pretty hard to prove either way.

Anybody seen the movie The Woodsman? It covers the subject pretty interestingly. Mainly just how prominant it really is without being reported and how horrible most Americans think it is.

Also, let's not forget that sex with minors is probably considered the worst possible crime in Northern American, Great Britain, and some other countries, but is relatively OK in others. My sister went to France when she was 14 and was getting hit on constantly by 40-year-old men. Apparently, 14yo French girls don't date anyone under 30 unless they (the girls) are losers. Also, kuru was discovered in New Guinea. They have a practice of homosexual sex with young boys. Perfectly OK there. But the scientist who discovered the disease there brought this practice back with him to the US and hello, jail. And, in the US, how young is too young? 17? 14? 7? Most people don't whine about an 18yo and a 17yo having sex. What about a 40yo and a 17yo? It's all just culturally subjective.

In cultures that accept older people having sex with much younger people, are young people who have sex with much older people permanantly psychologically scarred? I would guess a large reason of why it's so damaging to kids in the US is the stigma against it. If it's culturally acceptable rather than vilified, I would assume it wouldn't be as bad for the kid.
Well, it isn't culturally accepted in the U.S. for the most part. Unsolicited fondling should be culturally unacceptable anywhere, really. It is taking an uninvited liberty with someone else's body.

And since it is not culturally accepted in the U.S., it can damage a child who is easily confused by such approaches, and so it is plainly a wrong thing, whether legal or not.

I do not care if the Zombibi tribe of New Guinea has relations with unborn fetuses, we do not do that here.


Diabloii.Net Member
Ah, but the point is, if it were culturally acceptable in the US (as it is in varying degrees in other nations), would it then be right? Is it "right" in those nations?

One might be inclined to say no, but what about people who kiss people on the cheek as a greeting instead of shaking hands? They're "taking an uninvited liberty" with my body. Personally, I'd rather be fondled than kissed. Saliva, ick; think of all the diseases it can carry. That's pretty psychologically damaging to me. Let's throw those goofballs in jail.

Oh, and let's not forget that kids have far fewer rights than adults. You can still generally spank a kid in the US; it's still usually considered "right" when done appropriately. Try it with an adult and you're gonna get assault and battery.

IDupedInMyPants said:
"Zodiac didn't ask what the law was, she said she thought it was bunk and asked what you thought about it."
Yeah, but you didn't answer her question, either. :uhhuh:

On a side note, a personal prayer: "Dear Lord, please let me get fondled. I'd prefer it to be by someone hot, but I'll take what I can get. Amen."

Fallen Creation

Diabloii.Net Member
Was there actually any evidence to convict him with? Or was it just the kid's word against his?

PS: And why did Duped get banned?


Diabloii.Net Member
I knew him back in high school. We were friends. I never realized that he would do something of this nature. The very surprising thing is that his folks are absolutely wonderful, awesome people?!?! Loved em, couldn't have been nicer people. We were all very surprised. I didn't know that this happened again; but I had heard about the two boys at the Y. Sad. I am surprised the judge could have thrown this out, especially after his serving 2 years for the same thing.


Diabloii.Net Member
Wow Nice pop up necro - love seeing Mixed Variety again
Not to mention KillBoyBob

and no one in the thread is perm banned.
Last edited: