ILNews

COA: State must prove violation of statute

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals addressed for the first time today whether under Indiana Code Section 35-48-4-16(b) a defendant only has the burden of placing the issue in question where the state's evidence hasn't done so.

In Kenneth Harrison v. State of Indiana, No. 49A04-0807-CR-423, Kenneth Harrison appealed his convictions for Class A felony dealing in cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park and Class B felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a public park, arguing the enhancement statute for dealing or possession of drugs near a park constitutes a mitigating factor that reduces culpability so he doesn't have the burden of proof.

The Court of Appeals examined Adkins v. State, 887 N.E.2d 934, 938 (Ind. 2008), and found the statute in question in the instant case doesn't excuse a defendant from culpability but operates only to reduce the level of culpability when certain factors are present, wrote Judge Terry Crone. A defendant has only the burden of placing the issue in question and then the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a defendant was either within 1,000 feet of a public park more than "briefly," or people under the age of 18 were within 1,000 feet of the park.

The state failed to carry its burden in the instant case. The record shows Harrison was briefly within 1,000 feet of the park when he actually sold the cocaine to an undercover officer while walking, and the state failed to show Harrison was constantly within 1,000 feet of the park during the entire sale. There was also no evidence to show people under the age of 18 near the park at the time of the sale, given it was a dark, rainy, and windy night, wrote the judge.

The appellate court reversed his conviction for Class A felony dealing in cocaine and remanded with instructions to reduce the conviction to a Class B felony and re-sentence him on that count. The Court of Appeals also remanded to the trial court to vacate Harrison's conviction of possession of cocaine on double jeopardy principles because the same cocaine was used to support both convictions.

The Court of Appeals also addressed Harrison's argument that the prosecutor committed misconduct during his closing argument by making a statement that shifted the burden of proof to Harrison. Harrison had testified a couple gave him a ride downtown so he could by marijuana and someone else must have sold the undercover officer the cocaine. The couple didn't show up for trial. The appellate court determined the prosecutor's comments were improper but don't warrant a reversal Harrison's conviction.

ADVERTISEMENT

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. For many years this young man was "family" being my cousin's son. Then he decided to ignore my existence and that of my daughter who was very hurt by his actions after growing up admiring, Jason. Glad he is doing well, as for his opinion, if you care so much you wouldn't ignore the feelings of those who cared so much about you for years, Jason.

  2. Good riddance to this dangerous activist judge

  3. What is the one thing the Hoosier legal status quo hates more than a whistleblower? A lawyer whistleblower taking on the system man to man. That must never be rewarded, must always, always, always be punished, lest the whole rotten tree be felled.

  4. I want to post this to keep this tread alive and hope more of David's former clients might come forward. In my case, this coward of a man represented me from June 2014 for a couple of months before I fired him. I knew something was wrong when he blatantly lied about what he had advised me in my contentious and unfortunate divorce trial. His impact on the proceedings cast a very long shadow and continues to impact me after a lengthy 19 month divorce. I would join a class action suit.

  5. The dispute in LB Indiana regarding lake front property rights is typical of most beach communities along our Great Lakes. Simply put, communication to non owners when visiting the lakefront would be beneficial. The Great Lakes are designated navigational waters (including shorelines). The high-water mark signifies the area one is able to navigate. This means you can walk, run, skip, etc. along the shores. You can't however loiter, camp, sunbath in front of someones property. Informational signs may be helpful to owners and visitors. Our Great Lakes are a treasure that should be enjoyed by all. PS We should all be concerned that the Long Beach, Indiana community is on septic systems.

ADVERTISEMENT