PRINCETON — According to an opinion entered on Thursday, the state Supreme Court of Appeals has overturned a circuit court ruling in the case of a Mercer County man who entered a nolo contendere plea (no contest plea) to one count of sexual abuse in the first degree.
Virgil Eugene Shrader, 68, of Sandlick, was arrested on May 28, 2007, and was indicted on Feb. 8, 2009, on 12 counts of sexual assault, sexual abuse and sexual abuse by a custodian or person in a position of trust to a child. Shrader and the state entered into a plea agreement that he would plea “no contest” to one count of Sexual abuse in the first degree.
The plea agreement also called for Shrader to undergo a psychiatric evaluation by a mental health professional. The court required that if the defendant did not successfully complete the terms of the agreement, he would be considered to be guilty, and would have to register as a sex offender.
It took time for the state to find an appropriate counselor to provide the therapy because Shrader refused “to admit that he was a sex offender.” The court considered having the charges presented in a trial, but the state held to the plea agreement. Shrader stuck to his refusal to admit his guilt until the court considered putting him in jail. But the court didn’t accept his late admission.
“I think you’re making this admission now just to stay out of jail,” according to a quoted passage from the circuit court hearing. “As far as I’m concerned, you lied under oath.”
The appellate court’s majority opinion characterized the case as: “A procedural quagmire because of the manner in which the parties and the circuit court handled the petitioner’s (Shrader’s) nolo contendere plea,” according to the court’s opinion.
The court opinion noted that “the treatment condition became a moving target,” and said that instead of rejecting the plea, “the circuit court, as well as the state, approved the agreement and allowed the petitioner to plead nolo contendere and specifically did not require him to admit to any legal guilt to the crime charged.
The high court found that Shrader has “completed the conditions imposed under the plea agreement, allowing (Shrader) to withdraw his plea and ordering the state to dismiss all the charges.”
In a dissenting opinion, Justice Allen H. Loughry II wrote: “Unlike the majority, I am confident the victim does not feel as if the crime never occurred.” As a result of the court’s ruling, Loughry noted that Shrader can live anywhere he wants to.
“Remarkably, in the face of the defendant’s admission to having sexually abused a minor, the majority is content to allow his conduct to go unpunished,” Loughry wrote. “I would have affirmed both his sentence and conviction.” ..Source.. by BILL ARCHER
No comments:
Post a Comment
We use the Disqus Commenting system, please wait for it to load. Also, comments are moderated, please stick to the issue of the post, as we are trying to have an intelligent, relevant discussion which develops the post. Comments deviating from topic of post will not be posted. Thanks