Plea deal possible in sex case

Norwalk man accused of committing sex offense with 15-year-old girl.
Cary Ashby
Apr 1, 2014


The defense attorney for a Norwalk man accused of committing a sex offense with a 15-year-old girl said Monday a plea deal is possible.

Defendant Stephen Erwin, 23, of 104 E. Seminary St., is charged with 12 counts of unlawful sexual conduct with a minor. According to his indictment, the fourth-degree felonies are in connection with incidents on May 26, June 3 and 9, July 7 and 21; Aug. 3 and 18; Sept. 1, 15 and 29; plus Oct. 13 and 27.

Erwin's Huron County Common Pleas Court trial is scheduled for April 22. Attorneys expect the proceeding to last two to three days.

However, Huron County Public Defender David Longo said at Monday's hearing "the trial is unlikely."

Huron County Assistant Prosecutor Richard Woodruff told Judge Jim Conway he and Longo haven't had any discussions about a possible plea deal, but added he agrees with Longo that "something could be worked out."

If convicted, Erwin faces six to 18 months behind bars on each charge. He also would be classified as a Tier II sex offender, which would require him to register his address for 25 years.

Greenwich Police Officer Aaron Smith handled the investigation. Smith has said the girl's father came to the station after he looked at his daughter's Facebook page and "came across some information." The officer didn't elaborate.

Smith said Erwin lived in Greenwich at one point and police had been looking for him ever since he moved. The officer also said there was a suspected sex offense which took place in Willard, but it's unknown if Erwin's indictment reflects that allegation.

"Erwin was cooperative. He had confessed to all 12 counts," Smith said.

A Huron County grand jury issued a secret indictment Dec. 13. Grand jurors often issue a secret indictment if authorities suspect the defendant might flee. The Huron County Sheriff's Office arrested Erwin at his home the afternoon of Jan. 31 and booked him into the jail.

Erwin later posted a $10,000 bond. He is prohibited from having any association with any non-family members under the age of 18.




When are you going to stop the plea deals and start making people accountable for their actions?

Cary Ashby

Something to consider -- How is a plea deal NOT making someone accountable for their actions? After all, as the judge says in court to each and every defendant, pleading guilty means they're admitting to committing the offense. Food for thought.


that is like an april fools response right; not just a fools response; because if it was your child i am sure a plea deal wouldn't be good enough

swiss family

Mr Ashby... To me, being "accountable" for your crime, means, to be held responsible for the entire and the maximum amount of punishment allowed by law, to be given to the criminal by the judge, before there are any Plea deals met.Maybe it is your free thinking reporter mind that sees things objectively, but, like someone else said.. if the victim of any of these crimes would ever be someone you knew or loved, you would be outraged that they were allowed to have the charges "Plead" down, even if it did meant that they were not denying guilt by doing so...Crime is not stopping, dwindling, or even skipping a beat with the joke of a Justice system we have in place right now..


All I can is wow! Throw this joker in the slammer and leave him there. There are way too many plea deals (maybe because we have a substandard prosecutor that cant win a case?) Your response is sad Cary. Food for thought?


Here's the plea deal... We are only going to cut half of your Richard off instead of the entire thing. The jewels are coming off regardless.


Something to also consider..... Because plea dealing, is not paying the full extent of your crime. it has nothing to do with guilt. I'm sure you have heard the saying and eye for and eye, that means you cannot do more than what was done to you. So to me plea dealing is making a person pay for less of the crime than they committed . a victim gets blinded in one eye, the perpetrator does a plea deal and only gets a black eye out of it.Now being blind in one eye leaves you with depth perception and a distance judgement. problems for life. But the perpetrator has their depth perception and can judge distance, because it was plead down to a black eye,all it says is the perpetrator gave the person a black eye. When in fact the perpetrator took that persons sight from one eye "Food for thought"