Judges uphold 40-year sentence in drug deal turned robbery

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man’s 40-year sentence for his role in the robbery of two people after he set up a drug deal with one of the victims.

George Moss knew Philip Potenza and Randall Peterman. Moss set up a deal to sell marijuana to Potenza down the street from Potenza’s home, where he lived with Peterman. When Moss showed up, Todd Ruffin pointed a gun at Moss and demanded everything on him. The men then went to Potenza’s home, where they robbed Peterman. Peterman was shot in the leg in the process.

Police spoke with Peterman while he was in the hospital, and he said that it appeared Moss was also being held up by Ruffin and had his hands in the air. Peterman later said at Moss’ trial this statement was inaccurate and that he did not remember much about his time at the hospital because he was in shock. He testified he never saw a gun pointed at Moss and the two acted like a team.  

Moss presented a duress defense at his trial, claiming Ruffin pointed the gun at him and told him he would be killed if he did not do everything he was told. The defense wanted Peterman’s statement marked as defense exhibit A; the state objected to admission as an exhibit but not to the transcript being marked. After closing arguments, the defense wanted to have the court look at the statement, but the trial court denied it. Moss was found guilty of felony burglary, two counts of robbery, criminal confinement and carrying a handgun without a license.

In George Moss v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1311-CR-961, the Court of Appeals declined to find that the trial court abused its discretion by not reopening the case to admit the statement taken during Peterman’s interview with police at the hospital.

“Although Peterman testified and was subject to cross-examination, the statement was not given under oath. It was therefore inadmissible hearsay. At best, Peterman’s prior inconsistent statement was admissible only to impeach him, not as substantive evidence to prove that Moss was also under the threat of Ruffin’s gun,” Chief Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote.

The judges also rejected Moss’ request to have his sentences run concurrently, which would reduce his overall sentence from 40 years to 30 years. They pointed to his instigation and participation in the crimes and his criminal history.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.