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. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  2. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  3. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  4. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

  5. What form or who do I talk to about a d felony which I hear is classified as a 6 now? Who do I talk to. About to get my degree and I need this to go away it's been over 7 years if that helps.

ADVERTISEMENT