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. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT