ILNews

Appeals court tosses 1 of man’s 6 drug convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A man found guilty of multiple drug charges will have one conviction vacated because he was subjected to double jeopardy, the Court of Appeals ruled Friday.

Kevin Speer was sentenced to more than 33 years in prison for his conviction of Class B felony conspiracy to manufacture methamphetamine and manufacturing meth; Class D felony charges of possession of meth and possession of precursors and maintaining a common nuisance; and Class A misdemeanor possession of paraphernalia.

The panel found there was sufficient evidence that Speer committed the crimes for which he was convicted and that searches that turned up evidence didn’t violate his Fourth Amendment protections. The Tippecanoe Superior Court didn’t abuse its discretion in denying Speer’s mistrial request and didn’t impose an inappropriate sentence, the COA found.

But the court ruled that because the state mentioned Speer possessed an ammonium mixture containing two precursors for making meth in its arguments for conviction on the possession of precursors and manufacturing meth counts, “there is a reasonable probability that jury used those pieces of evidence to establish the essential elements of both crimes, violating double jeopardy,” Judge Melissa May wrote in Kevin Speer v. State of Indiana, 79A02-1209-CR-748.

“We therefore vacate his conviction of and sentence for Class D felony possession of two or more precursors used to manufacture methamphetamine, and remand to the trial court for revision of the Abstract of Judgment to reflect this holding.”


 



 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT