Definition of “Professional Relationship”

Listen to this article

7^th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Mark Benner v. Jesse Carlton

Case No.: 22-1139

Officials: Easterbrook, Hamilton, and Brennan, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Definition of “Professional Relationship”

A statute in Indiana makes it a crime for anyone who “has or had” a professional relation with a person under the age of 18 to “use[] or exert[] the person’s professional relationship to engage in sexual intercourse” with that young person. Ind. Code §35-42-4-7(n). Benner was convicted of violating this statute and he was sentenced to 66 months’ imprisonment, suspended in favor of probation. The state’s judiciary first rejected two constitutional challenges to this statute, 2017 Ind. App. Un-pub. LEXIS 981 (July 27, 2017), and then affirmed the conviction, 131 N.E. 3d 634 (Ind. App. 2019). A district court denied Benner’s petition for collateral relief, which rests on a contention that the statute is unconstitutionally vague.

Asked at oral argument what decision of the Supreme Court “clearly establishes” the invalidity of a statute such as §35-42-4-7, Benner did not have an answer. He pointed to some appellate decisions, but §2254(d)(1) forecloses reliance on them. See, e.g., Lopez v. Smith, 574 U.S. 1 (2014). After argument he filed a letter naming Johnson v. United States, 576 U.S. 591 (2015), as his best authority. Yet that decision is not remotely controlling

Affirmed.

Decided 01/26/23

Full Text