She Survived by M. William Phelps Page A

belong to the Peeping Tom, whom he had just spotted staring into the neighbor’s window.
    Shortly thereafter, as the neighbor watched the truck to see if anyone came back, Scott Saxton reappeared, ran to his vehicle, hopped inside, and started it up.
    The neighbor chased Saxton, but he couldn’t prevent Saxton from making a getaway.
    The man’s significant other was outside by now, curious as to what was going on. As Saxton drove away, she was able to see the license plate number of his vehicle and report it directly to the police.
    As Saxton sped away, he failed to stop at a nearby traffic light. An officer witnessed the infraction, hit his lights, and pulled over Saxton’s truck.
    The cop soon realized the license plate number of the truck matched an APB that had just gone out, as well as a description of the truck every local law enforcement patrol officer had by now.
    The cop returned Saxton to the neighbor’s house, where the Good Samaritan positively identified him.
    Once again, Scott Saxton was caught in the act.
    Â 
    Â 
    The next month, on June 4, 2002, the local prosecutor filed a notice of probation revocation against Saxton. In that order the state alleged that Saxton had committed voyeurism. At a subsequent revocation hearing, on July 19, 2002, the state put up witnesses and the trial court concluded that Saxton had violated his probation by committing voyeurism, thus revoking it.
    On March 14, 2003, however, the Court of Appeals of Indiana—quite shockingly—reversed that decision.
    Why? Because although the state, according to Saxton’s written appeal, presented evidence that Scott Saxton “peeped” in the window of the victim, the state presented no direct or circumstantial evidence regarding whether [the victim] consented to the peeping.
    It sounded preposterous and equally unbelievable. Yet, as the ruling continued, Under the statute, peeping alone is not a crime.
    Imagine!
    The reversal of that decision did not sit well with the Supreme Court of Indiana, however. On June 20, 2003, after the attorney general and assistant attorney general took the case to the highest court in Indiana, it was reversed once again, and the original trial court decision was affirmed.
    We conclude the evidence was sufficient, the four Indiana Supreme Court judges smartly wrote. They had based their decision on a witness who testified about “suspecting there was a Peeping Tom in the neighborhood. . . .” They noted the “time of the day” and Saxton’s “reaction to being discovered” while he stood, staring into a stranger’s window.
    Put in terms of sufficiency of the evidence, the Supreme Court wrote, the question becomes: Can a trial court infer that someone caught standing . . . staring into a woman’s bathroom at 5 a.m., who runs off rather forcefully when challenged, was a person peeping without permission of the target? We say yes, and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
    After all of that, Scott Saxton was released in 2004 after serving his time.
    â€œI was really upset once I realized he did not get his backup time, especially over the fact that the prosecution didn’t call the right witness to trial!” Melissa commented later. “Or the fact that you have to prove someone is ‘peeping without your consent.’ Really? . . . Like I have said, the system is not built for victims. It’s built for criminals. I felt cheated, let down, by the whole thing.”
    By 2009, Scott Saxton was once again facing time after being caught with a gun, which amounted to unlawful firearm possession by a serious felon.
    He went back to prison and was released in 2011.
    Make no mistake about this man, if you live near him, be very cautious and know that he is a repeat offender and will not stop. Check your local sex offender registry and see if he is on it. If he is, move.

CHAPTER 33
    LAUGHTER IS A GIFT
    Life for Melissa Schickel today