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. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT