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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  2. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  3. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  4. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well

  5. Sex offenders are victims twice, once when they are molested as kids, and again when they repeat the behavior, you never see money spent on helping them do you. That's why this circle continues