Perrey v. State

The majority opinion here relies upon Richards v. State, 816 N.E.2d 72 (Ind.Ct.App.2004) and In Re Bridges, 474 N.E.2d 529 (Ind.Ct.App.1985). Richards correctly says that under subsection one of the statute the State had to prove the absence of consent on the part of C.R., the five-year-old child. This is because that subsection defines confinement as being "without the other person's consent." The Richards court went on to say, however, that whether or not C.R. consented was irrelevant because subsection two of the statute permits conviction without regard to the other person's consent, and…