ILNews

CCEC Work Group proposes sweeping revision to the Indiana Criminal Code

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

If you’re going to steal a loaf of bread, you might as well grab a couple of high-priced electronic devices and maybe some employees’ wallets on your way out of the store.

Indiana is the only state in the union that does not have a misdemeanor category for theft which means regardless of the monetary value of the items you appropriate – even if it is just a $2 loaf of bread – you will be charged with a felony.

That is just one proportionality problem that has appeared in the Indiana Criminal Code since it was last recodified in 1977. During the intervening 35 years, the code has been tinkered with and tweaked but now, many agree, the time has come for a sweeping rewrite.

To that end, the Indiana General Assembly’s Criminal Code Evaluation Commission, currently chaired by Rep. Ralph Foley, R-Martinsville, has started another round of hearings to collect data and recommendations for revising the state’s criminal statutes. A key element of this review will be an extensive study of significant sections of Title 35 by the CCEC Work Group.

A 365-page report contains the group’s overview of the current law, a list of the concerns and the recommendations for amendments, as well as the reasoning behind those suggestions.

“We appreciate the hard work they have done,” said David Powell, executive director of the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council. “It’s certainly a good start.”

The CCEC was created in 2009, charged with the task of “evaluating the criminal laws of Indiana.” Its guiding principles included consistency, proportionality of penalties, elimination of duplication, and increased certainty regarding the length of the sentence to be served.

Based on proposals from the Justice Reinvestment Program, a project of the Council of State Governments Justice Center, to make specific changes to Indiana law, the commission adopted the recommendations in December 2010. However, the Legislature did not pass any bills regarding the changes because, in part, the CCEC had not completed a comprehensive review.

Consequently, the workgroup was formed with representatives from the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council and the Indiana Public Defender Council as well as the Indiana Judicial Center and private practice. Deborah Daniels, partner at Krieg DeVault LLP and former U.S. attorney and U.S. assistant attorney general, was the chair.

The General Assembly could begin debating changes to the code once the commission finishes its review – possibly during the 2013 legislative session. What changes the revision will contain and whether or not a provision for misdemeanor theft will be included is anybody’s guess.

“Our role was limited to making the recommendations,” Daniels said. “The only thing I’m sure of, they won’t be adopted in total.”

Foley said the effort may not be perfect, but he believes the Legislature will be on the path to increasing public safety, reducing recidivism and better using taxpayers’ money.

“We’re making progress and I’m optimistic that it will continue to be a collaborative effort and we’ll be able to rewrite the criminal code,” he said.

In the course of its study, the workgroup reached the conclusion that the current four classes of felonies (Class A, Class B, Class C and Class D) should be expanded to six by dividing Class A and Class B each into two parts. Murder would remain in its own class.

Although the idea of increasing the levels of felonies is not new, Daniels said, the workgroup did not start its evaluation with expansion in mind. Instead, as the members examined the code from the standpoint of proportionality, they saw offenses were bunching at the top.

This led them to recommended Class A felonies be broken down into Level 1 and Level 2 while Class B felonies be separated into Level 3 and Level 4. Class C and Class D felonies were matched to Level 5 and Level 6, respectively.

Since the workgroup’s report was issued in July, the Indiana Prosecuting Attorneys Council has been vetting it among prosecutors. Their review is continuing but, Powell said, no one is throwing his or her arms up over the expansion of felony levels. They agree six classes are workable and will help with proportionality.

The workgroup was very specific in matching crimes to the new levels, assigning, for instance, disarming a law enforcement officer causing death as a Level 1 and disarming a law enforcement officer using a weapon as Level 2.

However, the group did not attach sentencing recommendations to the levels. Daniels said the members talked about ranges but then tabled the discussion and eventually came to the conclusion that by offering no advice on sentencing, the proportionality was “more pure.” The level indicates the severity of the crime so the greatest number of years would be attached to the higher ones.

Sentencing was not the workgroup’s role, Daniels said. It is more appropriate for the Legislature to consider what it thinks each crime is worth weighed against how much the state’s criminal system can sustain.

Asked whether members of the Legislature have the political will to revise code and possibly risk being described as soft on crime, Foley was emphatic.

“I find it hard to accept being realistic on crime is anything but being tough on crime,” he answered, adding that making the punishment fit the offense enhances public safety because it creates a sense of justice.

Nowhere may justice be more obtuse than in the area of drug crimes. Daniels noted the section of the code related to drug crimes is where proportionality comes to the fore.

For example, possession with intent to deliver 3 grams of cocaine is categorized as a Class A felony, carrying a sentence of 20 to 50 years. This is more severe than the penalty for rape, a Class B felony carrying six to 20 years.

Also, possession of cocaine jumps from a Class D felony to a Class A felony if the individual has 3 grams or more and is within 1,000 feet of a school or public park.

“As long as I’ve been involved in criminal justice policy, it has been startlingly clear Indiana’s drug and theft laws are grossly disproportionate to the crime,” said Andrew Cullen, legislative liaison for the Indiana Public Defenders Council and member of the workgroup.

In its recommendations, the workgroup exhaustively revamped drug felonies. Dealing between 10 and 28 grams of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a protected zone with a gun or prior conviction for dealing would be a Level 2 crime. But dealing with less than 3 grams of cocaine would be a Level 5 crime.

Daniels is scheduled to formally present the workgroup’s report to the commission on Sept. 20.

------------------------------

6-Level Felony Proportionality Proposal

Below are some examples of changes to certain offenses based on proposals made by the Criminal Code Evaluation Commission Work Group. The workgroup has issued a lengthy report reviewing Indiana’s Criminal Code. Goals of the group included creating consistency, proportionality of penalties, and like sentences for like crimes. The workgroup has suggested expanding Indiana’s four felony classes to six levels.

Section 35-42-1-1

LEVEL 1: Conspiracy to commit murder causing death

LEVEL 2: Attempted murder or conspiracy to commit murder

Section 35-42-3-2

LEVEL 1: Aggravated battery (death)

LEVEL 3: Aggravated battery

Section 35-42-3-2

LEVEL 2: Criminal confinement (ransom, hijacking, demanding release of another, hostage)

LEVEL 4: Criminal confinement (deadly weapon, serious bodily injury (SBI), aircraft)

LEVEL 5: Criminal confinement (less than 14 years old, vehicle, injury)

LEVEL 6: Criminal confinement

Section 35-42-4-1

LEVEL 1: Rape (deadly force, weapon, SBI, drug)

LEVEL 3: Rape

Section 35-44-3-3.5

LEVEL 1: Disarming a law enforcement officer (death)

LEVEL 2: Disarming a law enforcement officer using a weapon (SBI)

LEVEL 3: Disarming of law enforcement officer (SBI)

LEVEL 5: Disarming of law enforcement officer

Section 35-48-4-1.1

LEVEL 1: Manufacturing: Meth lab explosion causing serious bodily injury to someone other than the manufacturer or causing property damage greater than $10,000

LEVEL 2: Dealing: Greater than 28 grams OR dealing between 10 and 28 grams AND manufacturing, dealing to person less than 18 years of age, within 1,000 feet of protected zone, with a gun or prior conviction of dealing in any controlled substance (excluding marijuana)

LEVEL 3: Dealing: Between 10 and 28 grams OR dealing between 3 and 10 grams AND manufacturing, dealing to person less than 18 years of age, within 1,000 feet of protected zone, with a gun or prior conviction of dealing in any controlled substance (excluding marijuana)

LEVEL 4: Dealing: Between 3 and 10 grams OR less than 3 grams AND manufacturing, dealing to person less than 18 years of age, within 1,000 feet of protected zone, with a gun or prior conviction of dealing in any controlled substance (excluding marijuana)

LEVEL 5: Dealing: Less than 3 grams

ADVERTISEMENT

  • retroactive
    I would also like to know if someone sentenced to 30 years for felony A possession and dealing cocaine/ non violent can it be retroactively changed!
  • "Getting Realistic on Clime"
    Curtis Cobbs has spent over 17 1/2 yrs in an facility, he is an non-violent offender that had received 50yrs out of spite since he refused the prior plea bargin. Is it possible for him to retroactive him a modification for the time that he has already spent?

    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

    facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

    Indiana State Bar Association

    Indianapolis Bar Association

    Evansville Bar Association

    Allen County Bar Association

    Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

    facebook
    ADVERTISEMENT
    Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
    1. I don't agree that this is an extreme case. There are more of these people than you realize - people that are vindictive and/or with psychological issues have clogged the system with baseless suits that are costly to the defendant and to taxpayers. Restricting repeat offenders from further abusing the system is not akin to restricting their freedon, but to protecting their victims, and the court system, from allowing them unfettered access. From the Supreme Court opinion "he has burdened the opposing party and the courts of this state at every level with massive, confusing, disorganized, defective, repetitive, and often meritless filings."

    2. So, if you cry wolf one too many times courts may "restrict" your ability to pursue legal action? Also, why is document production equated with wealth? Anyone can "produce probably tens of thousands of pages of filings" if they have a public library card. I understand this is an extreme case, but our Supreme Court really got this one wrong.

    3. He called our nation a nation of cowards because we didn't want to talk about race. That was a cheap shot coming from the top cop. The man who decides who gets the federal government indicts. Wow. Not a gentleman if that is the measure. More importantly, this insult delivered as we all understand, to white people-- without him or anybody needing to explain that is precisely what he meant-- but this is an insult to timid white persons who fear the government and don't want to say anything about race for fear of being accused a racist. With all the legal heat that can come down on somebody if they say something which can be construed by a prosecutor like Mr Holder as racist, is it any wonder white people-- that's who he meant obviously-- is there any surprise that white people don't want to talk about race? And as lawyers we have even less freedom lest our remarks be considered violations of the rules. Mr Holder also demonstrated his bias by publically visiting with the family of the young man who was killed by a police offering in the line of duty, which was a very strong indicator of bias agains the offer who is under investigation, and was a failure to lead properly by letting his investigators do their job without him predetermining the proper outcome. He also has potentially biased the jury pool. All in all this worsens race relations by feeding into the perception shared by whites as well as blacks that justice will not be impartial. I will say this much, I do not blame Obama for all of HOlder's missteps. Obama has done a lot of things to stay above the fray and try and be a leader for all Americans. Maybe he should have reigned Holder in some but Obama's got his hands full with other problelms. Oh did I mention HOlder is a bank crony who will probably get a job in a silkstocking law firm working for millions of bucks a year defending bankers whom he didn't have the integrity or courage to hold to account for their acts of fraud on the United States, other financial institutions, and the people. His tenure will be regarded by history as a failure of leadership at one of the most important jobs in our nation. Finally and most importantly besides him insulting the public and letting off the big financial cheats, he has been at the forefront of over-prosecuting the secrecy laws to punish whistleblowers and chill free speech. What has Holder done to vindicate the rights of privacy of the American public against the illegal snooping of the NSA? He could have charged NSA personnel with violations of law for their warrantless wiretapping which has been done millions of times and instead he did not persecute a single soul. That is a defalcation of historical proportions and it signals to the public that the government DOJ under him was not willing to do a damn thing to protect the public against the rapid growth of the illegal surveillance state. Who else could have done this? Nobody. And for that omission Obama deserves the blame too. Here were are sliding into a police state and Eric Holder made it go all the faster.

    4. JOE CLAYPOOL candidate for Superior Court in Harrison County - Indiana This candidate is misleading voters to think he is a Judge by putting Elect Judge Joe Claypool on his campaign literature. paragraphs 2 and 9 below clearly indicate this injustice to voting public to gain employment. What can we do? Indiana Code - Section 35-43-5-3: Deception (a) A person who: (1) being an officer, manager, or other person participating in the direction of a credit institution, knowingly or intentionally receives or permits the receipt of a deposit or other investment, knowing that the institution is insolvent; (2) knowingly or intentionally makes a false or misleading written statement with intent to obtain property, employment, or an educational opportunity; (3) misapplies entrusted property, property of a governmental entity, or property of a credit institution in a manner that the person knows is unlawful or that the person knows involves substantial risk of loss or detriment to either the owner of the property or to a person for whose benefit the property was entrusted; (4) knowingly or intentionally, in the regular course of business, either: (A) uses or possesses for use a false weight or measure or other device for falsely determining or recording the quality or quantity of any commodity; or (B) sells, offers, or displays for sale or delivers less than the represented quality or quantity of any commodity; (5) with intent to defraud another person furnishing electricity, gas, water, telecommunication, or any other utility service, avoids a lawful charge for that service by scheme or device or by tampering with facilities or equipment of the person furnishing the service; (6) with intent to defraud, misrepresents the identity of the person or another person or the identity or quality of property; (7) with intent to defraud an owner of a coin machine, deposits a slug in that machine; (8) with intent to enable the person or another person to deposit a slug in a coin machine, makes, possesses, or disposes of a slug; (9) disseminates to the public an advertisement that the person knows is false, misleading, or deceptive, with intent to promote the purchase or sale of property or the acceptance of employment;

    5. The story that you have shared is quite interesting and also the information is very helpful. Thanks for sharing the article. For more info: http://www.treasurecoastbailbonds.com/

    ADVERTISEMENT