COA reverses 4 attempted robbery convictions

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed four convictions of attempted robbery after finding the evidence didn't support a reasonable inference that the defendant intended to rob each of the alleged victims.

In Curtis Stokes v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0905-CR-276, Curtis Stokes appealed his convictions of six counts of attempted robbery and one count of robbery in connection with the robbery of people inside a recording studio in Indianapolis.

Stokes and five other men entered the occupied studio and split up into different areas of the studio. One of the robbers drew a gun and held it to Andrew Steele's face, saying "Get down. You know what this is." Two other robbers took $200 from Edriese Phillips, and Collin Moore was shot in the leg while trying to get down on the floor but wasn't robbed.

Stokes argued the evidence was insufficient to support his five attempted robbery convictions as Class B felonies, one conviction as a Class A felony, and his Class B felony robbery conviction. Stokes was an accomplice in the crimes at the studio, but the conduct of Stokes and his co-defendants doesn't support that they were involved in the attempted robbing of everyone there.

The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to support Stokes' convictions as an accomplice for the robbery of Phillips, and attempted robbery of Steele and Moore. But they didn't find he attempted to rob four other people at the studio for which he was charged and convicted. The trial court was persuaded by the argument that the command "Get down. You know what this is," was directed toward each of the victims listed in the charging information and implied they were all about to be robbed.

But there's not enough evidence to support Stokes' convictions of attempted robbery of those four men. The appellate court found the California Court of Appeals' opinion in People v. Bonner, 80 Cal. App. 4th 759 (2000), to be instructive. The defendant and his brother planned on robbing a hotel manager and assistant of money and knew the route they took together to deposit the hotel's money. But they were discovered hiding in the laundry room before they could commit the robbery. The California court held since the defendant had the intent to rob the hotel workers and took acts beyond mere preparation directed at robbing them, he could be convicted of two counts of attempted robbery.

But in the instant case, Stokes never admitted to any intent to rob nor did he identify anyone he was going to rob, wrote Judge Edward Najam. The studio robbers targeted specific people, so there's not enough evidence to show specific intent to rob everyone.

The comments made by the robbers to get down, without more, is too ambiguous to support a reasonable inference that Stokes intended to rob each of the alleged attempted robbery victims, wrote Judge Najam.

The Court of Appeals also upheld the denial of Stokes' motion for mistrial after learning some jurors saw documents that stated he was incarcerated pending trial. He had waived the issue, and failed to show he was placed in a position of grave peril as a result of the jurors' exposure to those documents.


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.