ILNews

COA says argument over wording of robbery statute is issue of first impression

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

An argument over the wording of the state’s robbery statute gave the Indiana Court of Appeals pause but ultimately did not sway its ruling in affirming a conviction of conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.

The appellants in Kenyatta Erkins and Ugbe Ojile v. State of Indiana, 58A01-1205-CR-215, raised multiple issues in their appeal of their convictions for Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and Class A felony attempt to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury.

In particular, Kenyatta Erkins and Ugbe Ojile asserted that the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for Class A felony conspiracy because the would-be victim was not harmed.

The pair had been watching while the potential victim, S.M., played cards at the Grand Victoria Casino. Although they subsequently talked on their cell phones about how much money S.M. had and about robbing S.M., they never actually robbed the would-be victim.

Early the next morning, Ohio police stopped and searched Erkin’s vehicle. They found dark clothing, camouflage gloves, a roll of duct tape, and a .49 caliber Glock handgun, a BB gun and a .40 caliber cartridge.

Erkins and Ojile were charged and found guilty.

On appeal, the pair contended the evidence was insufficient to support their convictions for Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury. They argued the use of the word “results” in the robbery statute, Indiana Code 35-42-5-1, requires the actual existence of serious bodily injury.
 
The appeals court noted this is an issue of first impression. The appellants cited no caselaw supporting their argument and the court did not find any cases, either in Indiana or its sister states, that address this issue.

Still, the COA pointed out Erkins and Ojile were not charged with robbery but rather charged and convicted of conspiracy.

The court concluded that the evidence is sufficient to support a conviction for a Class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery where the state establishes beyond a reasonable doubt that the co-conspirators intended and agreed to cause serious bodily injury to the victim in perpetrating the robbery.

Accordingly, the COA found an individual could find beyond a reasonable doubt that the appellants intended and agreed to harm S.M. when they robbed him.

The COA, rejecting Erkins’ and Ojile’s argument on the sufficiency of the evidence along with the other arguments they raised, affirmed the pair’s convictions.  
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • Illegal search
    Cops stopped and searched the car, didn't read anything about a search warrant, which without, violated their 4th ammendment rights the right to privacy. Also did not see any reason for making a traffic stop!
  • COA screws up again
    I want to caution everyone, if going to a costume party, have your costume delivered to the party, dress there, remove and discard before leaving. It appears that our courts can lock people up, even when there is no actual victim or no actual crime. I assume a jury made this conviction and I hope you got home in time for dinner. Juries in the United States have become a joke. A bunch of strangers sitting in judgement of another human being, for the most part don't give a crap about that person. They are more concerned with getting out of there, so they can do whatever they want to do!

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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I'm not sure what's more depressing: the fact that people would pay $35,000 per year to attend an unaccredited law school, or the fact that the same people "are hanging in there and willing to follow the dean’s lead in going forward" after the same school fails to gain accreditation, rendering their $70,000 and counting education worthless. Maybe it's a good thing these people can't sit for the bar.

  2. Such is not uncommon on law school startups. Students and faculty should tap Bruce Green, city attorney of Lufkin, Texas. He led a group of studnets and faculty and sued the ABA as a law student. He knows the ropes, has advised other law school startups. Very astute and principled attorney of unpopular clients, at least in his past, before Lufkin tapped him to run their show.

  3. Not that having the appellate records on Odyssey won't be welcome or useful, but I would rather they first bring in the stray counties that aren't yet connected on the trial court level.

  4. Aristotle said 350 bc: "The most hated sort, and with the greatest reason, is usury, which makes a gain out of money itself, and not from the natural object of it. For money was intended to be used in exchange, but not to increase at interest. And this term interest, which means the birth of money from money, is applied to the breeding of money because the offspring resembles the parent. Wherefore of an modes of getting wealth this is the most unnatural.

  5. Oh yes, lifetime tenure. The Founders gave that to the federal judges .... at that time no federal district courts existed .... so we are talking the Supreme Court justices only in context ....so that they could rule against traditional marriage and for the other pet projects of the sixties generation. Right. Hmmmm, but I must admit, there is something from that time frame that seems to recommend itself in this context ..... on yes, from a document the Founders penned in 1776: " He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good."

ADVERTISEMENT