Prosecution deferred in child sex case
Enrique J. Tovar, 20, Waupaca, was convicted of a felony count of exposing a child to harmful materials.
Nine counts of possession of child pornography were dismissed and read into the court record for sentencing purposes.
Judge Philip Kirk placed Tovar on three years probation and ordered him to serve 120 hours of community service and write a letter of apology to the victim.
Kirk said Tovar's record could be expunged if he successfully completes probation. The judge also did not require Tovar to register as a sex offender.
In a second case, Tovar pleaded no contest to a felony charge of sexual assault of a child after the district attorney's office agreed to defer prosecution.
Under the terms of the three-year agreement, Tovar is prohibited from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18 unless approved by his agent. He cannot go into any premises where juveniles may be present including day cares, schools, parks, sporting events, carnivals, swimming pools, malls and matinees.
If Tovar successfully completes the three-year probationary period, the felony charge will be amended to an ordinance violation.
According to the criminal complaint, Tovar allegedly had sexual relations in January through March 2009 with a girl who was born in March 1994.
Nine counts of possession of child pornography were dismissed and read into the court record for sentencing purposes.
Judge Philip Kirk placed Tovar on three years probation and ordered him to serve 120 hours of community service and write a letter of apology to the victim.
Kirk said Tovar's record could be expunged if he successfully completes probation. The judge also did not require Tovar to register as a sex offender.
In a second case, Tovar pleaded no contest to a felony charge of sexual assault of a child after the district attorney's office agreed to defer prosecution.
Under the terms of the three-year agreement, Tovar is prohibited from having unsupervised contact with any child under the age of 18 unless approved by his agent. He cannot go into any premises where juveniles may be present including day cares, schools, parks, sporting events, carnivals, swimming pools, malls and matinees.
If Tovar successfully completes the three-year probationary period, the felony charge will be amended to an ordinance violation.
According to the criminal complaint, Tovar allegedly had sexual relations in January through March 2009 with a girl who was born in March 1994.
More from Courts
- Waupaca County sheriff's report
- Waupaca County criminal sentencing (2)
- Vets Home resident charged with battery to officer (2)
- Fremont woman charged with battery (13)
- Home invasion suspect charged (1)
- Waupaca man charged with felony bail jumping
- Ogdensburg man charged with battery
- Homicide charges filed for fatal crash (29)
- Waupaca man charged with giving pot to child (9)
- Four criminal cases filed against Iola man (1)
13 Comments for "Prosecution deferred in child sex case
"
Sounds like a serious crime, but the DA has essentially given him not one free pass - but 8-10 free passes.
He was "facing 40 years in prison", and he walks with 120 hours of community service and 3 years probation. That's justice in Waupaca.
lastpercentile Dec 14, 2011 2:00 PM
justaview Dec 14, 2011 2:08 PM
justaview Dec 14, 2011 2:10 PM
According to the criminal complaint, the sexual assaults started in Jan 2009. In Jan 2009, the female was 14 and the male was 17. Their birthdates are on the record, so it's not worth arguing.
[quote=justaview]As you have previosuly been called out, it is rare to find a relationship where two people are of the same age down to the second.[/quote]
Sexual activity with anyone under the age of 18 is a crime. Temporal proximity in birth dates means nothing in this state.
[quote=justaview]You obviously know nothing about this case personally[/quote]
You're right, or I would have called the police in Jan 2009. Sounds like you have a lot of personal information - did you call the police?
[quote=justaview]But presumably, you are perfect and live in a perfect world where simple things don't slip through the cracks so you probably wouldn't understand that.[/quote]
There's a wide gap between perfection and rape, which is what we're talking about here. This is not sneaking a beer or cutting class.
lastpercentile Dec 14, 2011 2:22 PM
First of all, he pleaded no contest.
Secondly, he was DNA-confirmed to have fathered a baby with a minor - that's incontrovertible evidence.
Even Snider could have got that conviction (but, he continued his policy of letting all non-murderers [and a few of them] off the hook).
lastpercentile Dec 14, 2011 2:28 PM
You can come back with your petty remarks. Fact is fact and regardless of how its spun by the media there are always factors that lie behind the scenes.
And if under 18 is rape then she is just as guilty as he is. So tell me again on how you having an unreasonable outlook that no two persons under 18 will ever have relations again is fathomable unless you're living in a perfect world.
He was not found guilty of child pornography charges. The sexual assault of a child was defered. Fathering a baby doesn't make you guilty of possessing child pornography. Explain that one to me again. Better yet, stay out of it because until you know as much as some of these people do, then find something else to do with your time.
justaview Dec 14, 2011 3:30 PM
It's takes everything they have to get the what/where/when published. There's no spinning about it. They published a Pearl Harbor story [u]today[/u], how's that for a spin.
[quote]And if under 18 is rape then she is just as guilty as he is. So tell me again on how you having an unreasonable outlook that no two persons under 18 will ever have relations again[/quote]
And the DA should have charged her. And, both sets of parents - any who were in the house - should be charged with neglect, too.
I'm not saying it won't happen again, I'm saying (currently) it's a crime every time it does.
[quote]He was not found guilty of child pornography charges.[/quote]
The charges were dropped, without adjudication. However, I don't know how you could be found guilty of exposing a child to harmful material, unless you possess the harmful material. Dropping the charges does not mean "not guilty" - it means the DA isn't interested in doing his job.
[quote]Fathering a baby doesn't make you guilty of possessing child pornography. Explain that one to me again.[/quote]
I never said it made him guilty of child pornography. I said it made him guilty of sexual assault of a child, which it does.
The baby (and the paternity test) are incontrovertible evidence of mutual sexual assault - and neither party has been convicted of the charge.
==============================
Here's what I'd do as the DA - I'd hold a school assembly in each high school and explain:
1) Sex with someone under the age of 18 is a crime - boys and girls
2) Girls will be charged along with the boy, as the law allows
3) Either party can defend the charge by claiming the other party forced them
4) If one party claims force, the other party will be charged with felony rape
Girls should be concerned they will be charged; boys should be concerned that the girl will claim he forced her.
Result = a lot less child sex.
lastpercentile Dec 14, 2011 5:06 PM
I happen to know what the harmful material was. It had nothing to do with child pornography. Its something you can google without fear of repercussion. It was a joke, and innappropriate, as many chain texts and videos are these days. However, it was one minor showing it to another as a haha sort of thing. Therefore, again I feel that was not handled appropriately either.
I'm not condoning minor sexual activity by any means, I just feel it's hard to point the finger at one certain person in this case. All the parties involved, the DA, and the media. I know the media works to find reliable material but at the same time while they had posted last weeks story, it had been resolved for a matter of time already.
justaview Dec 14, 2011 6:27 PM
bowhunter3124 Dec 17, 2011 9:48 PM
bowhunter3124 Dec 17, 2011 9:48 PM
justaview Dec 19, 2011 10:03 AM
According to state law, a 14 year old is not able to give consent, therefore, this was NOT a mutual relationship. There is a huge difference between a 14 year old girl and a 17 year old boy.
chesteroowi Dec 28, 2011 7:36 AM
Not under the letter of the law. Both are susceptible to a charge of sexual assault.
The only difference exists in the mind of, and at the discretion of, the DA.
lastpercentile Dec 28, 2011 11:18 AM