ILNews

COA: Successive Prosecution Statute not applicable to theft case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Howard Superior judge properly refused to dismiss theft charges against a man because, despite the defendant’s arguments to the contrary, the Howard County charges were not previously prosecuted in Miami County.

Johann Schmidt sought to dismiss two Class C felony theft charges filed in Howard County related to his role in fraudulently securing loans from First Farmer’s State Bank by using collateral he no longer owned. Schmidt previously faced charges in Miami County on allegations he did not deliver concrete crushers to Mark Bowyer as agreed, after Bowyer had paid Schmidt several million dollars for several machines. Schmidt instead sold those machines he promised Bowyer to other companies after taking Bowyer’s money. Bowyer had borrowed money from a bank in Howard County to send Schmidt money to buy the machines. The charges in both counties were related to Schmidts’ business dealings with Bowyer.

Schmidt faced several charges of theft and fraud related to Bowyer and the bank in Miami County, but pleaded guilty to one count of theft for theft of money from FFSB.

Schmidt argued that Indiana’s Successive Prosecution Statute bars the filing of charges in Howard County because the charges should have been joined with the Miami County charges as they arose out of a single joint venture with the same alleged victim.

The trial court denied the motion, leading to this interlocutory appeal in Johann Schmidt v. State of Indiana, 34A02-1207-CR-570.  

“Schmidt’s offenses were not ‘a single criminal transaction’ identified by ‘a distinctive nature . . . common modus operandi, and a common motive.’ Instead, Schmidt committed offenses against two victims, FFSB and Bowyer,” Judge John Baker wrote. “Moreover, the offenses that Schmidt committed against each victim are also different in time and manner. Schmidt’s offenses against FFSB were perpetrated by fraudulent loan agreements and the resulting theft of FFSB’s property, either by Schmidt’s failure to repay the loan or by selling the collateral.”

The judges also rejected Schmidt’s claim that Indiana Code 35-34-1-10(c) requires the state to join all “potential” charges in a single prosecution whenever joinder “could” occur because that statute does not require the state to bring all potential charges in a unified action.

The case goes back to the trial court for more proceedings.

 

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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT