ILNews

Case remanded on double jeopardy clause

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Court of Appeals has reversed and remanded a man's conviction on two counts based on a violation of state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy. In Scott D. Moore v. State, Moore appealed his convictions of possession of anhydrous ammonia and possession of reagents or precursors, contending they are lesser-included offenses of the Count I of dealing in methamphetamine.

In July 2006, William Cashin and Moore went to Miles Farm Center, where Moore brought out a pitcher containing a fuming substance with a strong odor. As they left in Cashin's vehicle with the pitcher, two Princeton police officers noticed the vehicle and followed it. Once they noticed the police, Moore threw the pitcher out the window. The pitcher had a smoky, white, powdery substance inside, later proven to be an active methamphetamine solution.

Moore was charged with and found guilty of Count I - dealing a controlled substance, Count II - possession of anhydrous ammonia, and Count III - possession of reagents or precursors. Moore filed a Motion to Correct Error, alleging a witness for his defense was not properly subpoenaed prior to trial and he claimed the state failed to present sufficient evidence to convict him of dealing. He also claimed his conviction on all three counts violates state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy.

In the opinion authored by Judge Patricia Riley, the court affirms the trial court's denial of Moore's Motion to Correct Error. Records show no subpoena was issued to Casey Winters, but it appears to the court that knowledge of Winters' existence came "too little and too late" in this case.

The judges also affirmed the state met its burden to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Moore "knowingly or intentionally produced, prepared, propagated, compounded, converted, or processed methamphetamine."

In Moore's argument that his conviction of Counts II and III are double jeopardy, the court agreed and reversed and remanded with instruction that the trial court vacate those convictions.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. A sad end to a prolific gadfly. Indiana has suffered a great loss in the journalistic realm.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT