ILNews

Court: Man never raised defense to attempted robbery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday pointed out that a defendant needs to assert the defense of abandonment in some manner at trial. The judges rejected a man’s claim that the defense does not require a formal pleading or notice of the defense.

Adam Bigger attempted to rob a Fort Wayne bank in December 2012 by providing a note to a teller. The teller disappeared for a moment to retrieve a key for her cash drawer, and when she returned, had her hands in the air. Bigger then left the bank.

Bigger was convicted of attempted robbery as a Class C felony and sentence to eight years.

In Adam Bigger v. State of Indiana, 02A03-1308-CR-315, Bigger contended the state’s evidence wasn’t sufficient to disprove his defense of abandonment. The state argued that Bigger waived this issue because he did not raise the defense before or during his trial.

The judges agreed with the state, noting that Bigger needed to assert the defense in some manner, otherwise, the trier of fact would not know to consider the defense in its deliberations of a defendant’s guilt. As such, the issue is waived.

The COA affirmed his sentence, which is the maximum for a Class C felony, pointing to his sizable criminal history at the age of 28, which included 11 misdemeanor convictions and one felony conviction involving drugs.

“It is clear that numerous prior brushes with the law have proven ineffective to rehabilitate Bigger, and this offense is further proof that a longer period of incarceration is appropriate. Bigger has not carried his burden of persuading this Court that his sentence has met the inappropriateness standard of review,” Senior Judge John Sharpnack wrote.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT