Hewell v. State, 82A04-8609-CR-269

Citation507 N.E.2d 241
Case DateFebruary 11, 1987
CourtCourt of Appeals of Indiana

Page 241

507 N.E.2d 241
Gordon D. HEWELL, Appellant (Defendant Below),
STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below).
No. 82A04-8609-CR-269.
Court of Appeals of Indiana,
Fourth District.
Feb. 11, 1987.
Ordered Published April 29, 1987.

Page 242

John G. Bunner, Evansville, for appellant.

Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Richard Albert Alford, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellee.

CONOVER, Presiding Judge.

Defendant-Appellant Gordon D. Hewell (Hewell) appeals his conviction for Corrupt Business Influence, a class C felony. IND.CODE 35-45-6-2.

We affirm.


Hewell presents four issues for our review. We state them as:

1. whether the trial court properly followed the law of the case;

2. whether Hewell's double jeopardy rights were violated;

3. whether the court erred in failing to dismiss the State's Second Amended Information; and

4. whether the jury verdict was contrary to law and not sustained by sufficient evidence in view of the charging information.


Hewell was the object of a sting operation conducted by the Vanderburgh County Prosecutor's Office in late 1982 and early 1983. In November 1982, Neil Thomas (Thomas), Chief Deputy Prosecutor in Vanderburgh County, met with Danny Decker (Decker) who agreed to take part in the operation. Thomas devised a plan where Decker would offer to sell certain pieces of jewelry to the defendant, representing each item as stolen property. In exchange for his cooperation, Decker, who faced his third felony charge, would not be charged as a habitual offender.

Four times in December, 1982, and once in January, 1983, Decker transacted business with the defendant as planned. On December 1st, the defendant paid $400 for a woman's cluster diamond ring. On December 3rd, Decker, this time accompanied by his girlfriend, Cheryl Douglas, sold a man's cluster ring to the defendant. The next meeting took place on December 14th, when Decker, again accompanied by his girlfriend, offered a bracelet to the defendant who purchased it for $200. During the last meeting in December, just before Christmas, Decker sold the defendant two bracelets and a necklace. Finally, on January 19, 1983, the defendant purchased a small ring from Decker. On each of these five occasions, Decker carried a concealed transmitter which recorded the conversation taking place during the transaction. The recordings produced, however, were of poor quality and not introduced at trial. Also, while each item of jewelry offered to the defendant was represented by Decker as stolen property, it was either lawfully purchased to be used for the sting operation or was abandoned property previously turned in to the Evansville Police Department.

On January 19, 1983, after the final meeting between the defendant and Decker, the police arrested the defendant. On

Page 243

the same day police searched the defendant's business, Gordon Sales, Inc., and his residence. Police found the small ring purchased that day and the lady's diamond ring previously purchased.

Hewell was first tried and convicted for corrupt business influence in 1983. However, on appeal, Judge Ratliff found an unconstitutional seizure of evidence had occurred which was subsequently admitted into evidence and ordered a new trial for Hewell. A new trial was held wherein the unconstitutionally seized items were not admitted into evidence. Again, Hewell was convicted of Corrupt Business Influence. Hewell appeals this conviction.


Hewell contends the law of the case in his first appeal mandates he be acquitted on retrial. We disagree.

Law of the case designates the doctrine that an appellate court's determination on a legal issue is binding on both the trial court on remand and on the appellate court on a subsequent appeal given the same case and substantially the same facts. Fair Share Organization v. Mitnick (1964), 245 Ind. 324, 198 N.E.2d 765, cert. denied 379 U.S. 843, 85 S.Ct. 82, 13 L.Ed.2d 48; Hinds v. McNair (1980), Ind.App., 413 N.E.2d 586, 607. The rule holds prior appellate decisions conclusive on all questions which have been actually considered and determined in the first appeal. Egbert v. Egbert (1956), 235 Ind. 405, 132 N.E.2d 910; Hinds, supra.

Accordingly, we turn to Judge Ratliff's opinion in Hewell's first appeal to discover what was actually determined by the appellate court.

In Hewell v. State (1984), Ind.App., 471 N.E.2d 1235, the court determined stolen items of silver seized...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Becker v. State, 49A02-9901-CR-35.
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • November 24, 1999
    ...decisions are conclusive on all questions which have been actually considered and determined in a first appeal. Hewell v. State, 507 N.E.2d 241, 243 (Ind. The State also argues that Defendant has waived this issue for review. On an appeal from resentencing, the appellate court is confined t......
  • Stetina v. State, ex rel. Medical Licensing Bd. of Indiana, 49A02-8605-CV-169
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • October 6, 1987
    ...on all questions which have been actually considered and determined in the first appeal." Hewell v. State (1987) 4th Dist.Ind.App., 507 N.E.2d 241, 243. However, the preclusion against relitigating the First District's construction of "holding oneself out" does not mean that Stetina is prec......
  • McAdams v. Dorothy Edwards Realtors, Inc., 34A04-9003-CV-00147
    • United States
    • Indiana Court of Appeals of Indiana
    • May 18, 1992
    ...Mitnick (1964), 245 Ind. 324, 198 N.E.2d 765, cert. denied, 379 U.S. 843, 85 S.Ct. 82, 13 L.Ed.2d 48; Hewell v. State (1987), Ind.App., 507 N.E.2d 241. The McAdamses base their law of the case claim on language this court used in the first "The McAdamses complaint alleged that Taylor failed......

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