Wanda English Burnett, Editor

While saying he “respects the jury’s decision”, Prosecuting Attorney Ric Hertel said he was disappointed with the not guilty verdict returned in a recent court case involving charges on a Batesville man for Sexual Misconduct with a Minor.

Last Tuesday, February 5, a jury trial began for Steven Arnold Ross, 56, after he was charged with two counts of Sexual Misconduct with a Minor. According to Prosecutor Hertel, the charging information alleged that Ross had engaged in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with a child at least 14 years of age, but less than 16. The charges were originally filed in October of 2006.
A jury of six men and six women heard testimony from the alleged victim, who had recently turned 18-years-old. She had been made a ward of the court and was in foster care for about 14 months, having little and eventually no contact with her family. Her mother could only have supervised visitation with her due to the fact she (the mother) did not comply with the court’s order.

The alleged victim told in detail about the sex acts she was required to perform. Her therapist also testified that the victim had been treated for an extended period of time concerning this matter. The state also presented Detective Anthony Scott of the Indiana State Police as a witness.

The jurors heard from witnesses for the defense including Ross himself. They heard from various family members, including the alleged victim’s great aunt, mother, and younger sister, who said she (alleged victim) was not to be believed, and had a reputation of not telling the truth in the past. They said this was nothing more than a lie to get back at her parents for failing to tell her she was not the biological daughter of the defendant.

Prosecutor Hertel said that these kinds of cases rarely have physical evidence and “almost never an eyewitness to the actual crime.” He said it often comes down to one person’s word against another and juries like to have additional corroborating evidence. He said while this case lacked the corroborating evidence, given the defendant’s history, he felt compelled to try the case. He went on to say, “the rules of evidence prohibited the admission of some evidence to the State’s case.” He also acknowledged that the rules apply to both sides of the courtroom.

The prosecutor noted that the discussion with the alleged victim about the verdict was “very difficult and emotional.”