Hines v. State
Decision Date | 19 May 2015 |
Docket Number | No. 52S05–1408–CR–563.,52S05–1408–CR–563. |
Citation | 30 N.E.3d 1216 |
Parties | Cornelius HINES, Appellant (Defendant), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff). |
Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Stacy R. Uliana, Bargersville, IN, John H. Kenney, Indiana Public Defender Council, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellant.
Gregory F. Zoeller, Attorney General of Indiana, Ellen H. Meilaender, Andrew A. Kobe, Joseph Y. Ho, Deputy Attorneys General, Indianapolis, IN, Attorneys for Appellee.
, Justice.
Following a jury trial, the defendant Cornelius Hines was convicted of Criminal Confinement and Battery. He has appealed claiming violations of both Indiana's constitutional and common law proscriptions against double jeopardy and seeking review of sentence inappropriateness. We find that the defendant's two convictions do not violate the common law but do run afoul of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution.
Generally averring violation of double jeopardy under the Indiana Constitution and common law, the defendant makes three alternative arguments. In one, he argues that, even if the force he used to lunge against the officer were considered separately from the force he used to pin her against the wall, the continuous crime doctrine requires that such conduct be considered as a continuous single transaction, a species of common law double jeopardy. He alternatively argues that his force used to lunge into the officer was the very same force he used to pin her against the wall, and thus there is a reasonable possibility that the jury relied on the same evidence—this force—to convict him of both offenses, in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Indiana Constitution, Article 1, Section 14
. His third alternative double jeopardy argument is that his convictions for both Battery as a Class D felony and Confinement as a Class C felony violate Indiana common law double jeopardy because both convictions were enhanced based on the same bodily injury. In addition to these claims, the defendant seeks sentence review under Appellate Rule 7(B).
The defendant argues that, under protections against double jeopardy in the Indiana Constitution and Indiana common law, both his convictions cannot stand because “in reality, pushing and pinning [the officer] against the wall is one continuous act with the same purpose” and thus “the same force was used to support both convictions.” Appellant's Br. at 4. “Where the issue presented on appeal is a pure question of law, we review the matter de novo.” State v. Moss–Dwyer, 686 N.E.2d 109, 110 (Ind.1997)
.
The defendant focuses on his common law argument on transfer, arguing that the continuous crime doctrine applies regardless of whether actions are charged as the same or distinct offenses and that the defendant's act of pushing the officer constitutes just one criminal conviction. The defendant urges that this Court should follow Buchanan v. State, 913 N.E.2d 712, 720–21 (Ind.Ct.App.2009)
, trans. denied, where the Court of Appeals extended the continuous crime doctrine to vacate two distinct chargeable crimes. The State takes the opposite position, relying on Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733, 737 (Ind.Ct.App.2010), reh'g denied, where the Court of Appeals panel explicitly disagreed with Buchanan and limited the continuous crime doctrine to situations “where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same offense.” We largely agree with the Walker approach but write to restore and clarify the application of this common law doctrine. Ultimately, we agree that the continuous crime doctrine does not apply to the facts of this case.
The continuous crime doctrine is a rule of statutory construction and common law limited to situations where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same offense. “The continuous crime doctrine does not seek to reconcile the double jeopardy implications of two distinct chargeable 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) ( ). The Legislature, not this Court, defines when a criminal offense is “continuous,” e.g. not terminated by a single act or fact but subsisting for a definite period and covering successive, similar occurrences. We have applied the continuous crime doctrine in the context of felony murder and robbery,1 confinement,2 and kidnapping;3 situations where the crime charged, as defined by statute, was “continuous.” For example, in Eddy v. State, we interpreted the statutory requirement that a homicide-robbery transaction be continuous4 to encompass a transaction where all the statutory elements of the robbery had been completed before the commission of the homicide:
(internal citations omitted).
To the extent Buchanan stands for the proposition that the continuous crime doctrine may be judicially extended to two distinct criminal offenses, we disagree. See Buchanan, 913 N.E.2d at 720–21
(. ) First, within constitutional limitations, our Legislature has the inherent power to define crimes, State v. Clark, 247 Ind. 490, 495, 217 N.E.2d 588, 590–91 (1966), including when a crime may subsist for a definite period or cover successive, similar occurrences.5 Second, Nunn too broadly paraphrased precedent when it stated, “[O]ur decisions have long recognized that actions which are sufficient in themselves to constitute separate criminal offenses may be so compressed ... as to constitute a single transaction.” See
Nunn, 695 N.E.2d at 125 ( ). In Eddy and Thompson. we limited our analysis to whether a homicide occurring after a robbery could be considered “continuous” under Indiana's felony-murder statute. See
Eddy, 496 N.E.2d at 28 () (emphasis added); Thompson, 441 N.E.2d at 194 () (emphasis added) (quoting Stroud v. State, 272 Ind. 12, 14, 395 N.E.2d 770, 771 (1979) ). The continuous crime doctrine applies only where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same “continuous” offense.
The continuous crime doctrine does not apply to the facts of this case. The defendant was convicted of Criminal Confinement as a Class C felony6 and Battery as a Class D felony.7 He was not convicted of multiple charges of criminal confinement, nor multiple charges of battery. Nor is Battery a crime for which all of the elements necessary to impose criminal liability are also elements found in Criminal Confinement, or vice versa. Criminal Confinement and Battery are two distinct chargeable crimes to which the continuous crime doctrine does not apply.
As an alternative claim, the defendant focuses on Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution
, which provides that “No person shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.”
The defendant preliminarily alleges trial court error in finding his claim of double jeopardy moot. He asserts that “at sentencing, the trial court recognized that there may be a double jeopardy problem with the two convictions but found the issue moot because he ran the two sentences concurrently.” Appellant's Br. at 4. We agree with the defendant that this issue is not moot. A double jeopardy violation occurs when a court enters judgment twice for the same offense “and cannot be remedied by the ...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Wadle v. State
......14 This has left the actual-evidence test vulnerable to arbitrary application. In Hines v. State , for example, this Court found a double-jeopardy violation "because the facts establishing criminal confinement would also establish battery," even though the facts establishing the latter offense would not have established the former offense. 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1222 (Ind. 2015). See also ......
-
Powell v. State
...whether a single statutory offense will "subsist for a definite period or cover successive, similar occurrences."6 Hines v. State , 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1220 (Ind. 2015). In resolving a claim of multiplicity, our task is to determine whether the statute permits punishment for a single course of ......
-
Pugh v. State
...crime doctrine applies only where a defendant has been charged multiple times with the same “continuous” offense. Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1220 (Ind.2015). The continuity of these men's actions (i.e., raping the daughter in succession) does not negate the fact that these acts were co......
-
Luke v. State
...convicted or acquitted may also have been used to establish all the essential elements of a second challenged offense. Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216, 1222 (Ind.2015) ; Vestal v. State, 773 N.E.2d 805, 806 (Ind.2002), reh'g denied. “[A] ‘reasonable possibility’ that the jury used the same f......