Boyd v. State, No. 49A04-0106-CR-269.

Docket NºNo. 49A04-0106-CR-269.
Citation766 N.E.2d 396
Case DateMarch 07, 2002
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

766 N.E.2d 396

Mozell BOYD, Appellant-Defendant,
v.
STATE of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff

No. 49A04-0106-CR-269.

Court of Appeals of Indiana.

March 7, 2002.


766 N.E.2d 397
Susan D. Rayl, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorney for Appellant

766 N.E.2d 398
Steve Carter, Attorney General of Indiana, Cecelia K. Hemphill, Deputy Attorney General, Indianapolis, Indiana, Attorneys for Appellee

OPINION

NAJAM, Judge.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Mozell Boyd was convicted of Criminal Confinement and Attempted Criminal Confinement, both as Class B felonies, following a jury trial. Boyd now challenges his convictions, raising the following two issues for our review:

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence to support his convictions.

2. Whether his convictions for confinement and attempted confinement violate the Indiana constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy.

We affirm in part, and reverse in part.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

In August 2000, Audie Wilson unlocked and entered his car, which was parked behind an Indianapolis apartment building. As Wilson put his key into the ignition, Dewayne Perry, armed with a handgun, approached and ordered Wilson to exit the vehicle. Holding a gun to his back, Perry forced Wilson to walk toward the door of the apartment building. When they reached the building, Perry knocked twice on a nearby door, and from inside the stairwell Boyd emerged, along with his nephew, Ovanda Boyd. Perry gave the gun to Boyd and went to retrieve Wilson's car. Boyd held the gun on Wilson as they waited for Perry, who returned with the car in a few minutes. Boyd, along with Ovanda, intended to stuff Wilson into the car's trunk. But when they were unable to open it, they decided to throw Wilson in the back seat. Wilson resisted, and a scuffle ensued. After a three or four minute skirmish, Wilson was able to fend off Boyd and Ovanda. The pair left Wilson lying on the ground and crawled into the car as Perry, who was driving, sped away from the scene.

The State charged Boyd with Carjacking, Robbery, Criminal Confinement, Attempted Criminal Confinement, and Carrying a Handgun Without a License, although the State dismissed the robbery count prior to trial. The jury failed to reach a verdict on the carjacking count and acquitted Boyd of carrying a handgun without a license, but they found him guilty of both criminal confinement and attempted criminal confinement. The trial court entered judgment of conviction and sentenced Boyd to two concurrent ten-year terms. This appeal followed.

DISCUSSION AND DECISION

Sufficiency of the Evidence

Boyd initially argues that the State presented insufficient evidence to support his conviction for criminal confinement. We do not agree.

The proper standard of review on a claim of sufficiency of the evidence is well settled. Wheeler v. State, 749 N.E.2d 1111, 1115 (Ind.2001). The court does not reweigh the evidence or judge the credibility of the witnesses. Wallace v. State, 722 N.E.2d 910, 912 (Ind.Ct.App.2000). Instead, we consider only that evidence most favorable to the verdict along with all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom. We will affirm the conviction if sufficient probative value exists such that a trier of fact could find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Wheeler, 749 N.E.2d at 1115.

766 N.E.2d 399
To convict Boyd of criminal confinement, the State had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he knowingly or intentionally: (1) confined another person without the other person's consent; or (2) removed another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force from one place to another. See Ind.Code § 35-42-3-3

The state sought to convict Boyd as an accomplice. To do so, the State needed to prove that Boyd knowingly or intentionally aided, induced, or caused another person to commit criminal confinement, regardless of whether the other person had been prosecuted, convicted, or acquitted of that offense. See Sanquenetti v. State, 727 N.E.2d 437, 441 (Ind.2000) (citing to Indiana Code Section 35-41-2-4). There is no separate crime of being an accessory or aiding and abetting the perpetrator of a crime; rather a defendant may be convicted as a principal upon evidence that he aided or abetted in the perpetration of the charged crime. Id. The individual who aids another person in committing a crime is as guilty as the actual perpetrator. Id.

The following factors are considered in determining if a defendant aided another in the commission of a crime: "(1) presence at the scene of the crime; (2) companionship with another at scene of the crime; (3) failure to oppose commission of crime; and (4) course of conduct before, during and after occurrence of crime." Vitek v. State, 750 N.E.2d 346, 352 (Ind.2001). While the defendant's presence during the commission of the crime or his failure to...

To continue reading

Request your trial
36 practice notes
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 19 Mayo 2015
    ...crimes; rather, it defines those instances where a defendant's conduct amounts only to a single chargeable crime.” Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. not sought, see Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind.2002) (recognizing “a series of rules of statutory constr......
  • Riehle v. State, No. 15A05-0311-CR-557.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 Marzo 2005
    ...rather, the doctrine defines those instances where a defendant's conduct amounts only to a single chargeable crime. Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). In doing so, the continuous crime doctrine prevents the State from charging a defendant twice for the same continuous off......
  • Luke v. State, No. 15A01–1409–CR–407.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 Febrero 2016
    ...the burden [51 N.E.3d 409 to show that his convictions violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.” Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (citing Lutes v. State, 272 Ind. 699, 401 N.E.2d 671, 672–673 (1980) ). [16] In order to find a double jeopardy vio......
  • Taylor v. State, No. 49A02-0706-CR-472.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 31 Enero 2008
    ...One continuous confinement may result in only one conviction, even if the defendant both confines and removes a person. Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). "A confinement ends when the victim both feels and is, in fact, free from detention, and a separate confinement begin......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
36 cases
  • Hines v. State, No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.
    • United States
    • Indiana Supreme Court of Indiana
    • 19 Mayo 2015
    ...crimes; rather, it defines those instances where a defendant's conduct amounts only to a single chargeable crime.” Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002), trans. not sought, see Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826, 830 (Ind.2002) (recognizing “a series of rules of statutory constr......
  • Riehle v. State, No. 15A05-0311-CR-557.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 1 Marzo 2005
    ...rather, the doctrine defines those instances where a defendant's conduct amounts only to a single chargeable crime. Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). In doing so, the continuous crime doctrine prevents the State from charging a defendant twice for the same continuous off......
  • Luke v. State, No. 15A01–1409–CR–407.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 24 Febrero 2016
    ...the burden [51 N.E.3d 409 to show that his convictions violated his constitutional right to be free from double jeopardy.” Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (citing Lutes v. State, 272 Ind. 699, 401 N.E.2d 671, 672–673 (1980) ). [16] In order to find a double jeopardy vio......
  • Taylor v. State, No. 49A02-0706-CR-472.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • 31 Enero 2008
    ...One continuous confinement may result in only one conviction, even if the defendant both confines and removes a person. Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396, 400 (Ind.Ct.App.2002). "A confinement ends when the victim both feels and is, in fact, free from detention, and a separate confinement ......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT