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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

    2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

    3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

    4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

    5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

    ADVERTISEMENT