ILNews

Court reverses handgun conviction

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed today a defendant's conviction of carrying a handgun without a license because the circumstantial evidence doesn't support that the man had the requisite intent to constructively possess the gun.

In Donnell Jones v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-0909-CR850, Donnell Jones appealed his Class C felony carrying a handgun without a license conviction following his traffic stop for speeding. Jones, a mechanic, was test-driving a customer's car on his way home from work and was drinking alcohol in the car. The police officer saw Jones reaching around the front floor board of the car and in the back seat. It took the officer two attempts to stop Jones, who drove away the first time the officer stopped him.

The officer found open containers of alcohol in the car. After Jones was arrested and transported, police found a handgun under the driver's seat.

The state had to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Jones carried the handgun without a license, and had actual or constructive possession over the gun by showing he had the intent and capability to maintain control over the gun.

Jones testified he didn't know about the handgun and that he was just trying to hide the alcohol from the officer, but the trial court discredited his testimony on that because Jones couldn't remember being pulled over the first time. The jury found him guilty of carrying a handgun without a license as a Class C felony, for which he was sentenced to five years executed. He also was sentenced to one year executed for operating a vehicle while intoxicated conviction, to be served concurrently with the handgun sentence.

The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence to support Jones' conviction of operating a vehicle while intoxicated, but insufficient evidence supporting his conviction of carrying a handgun without a license, wrote Judge James Kirsch.

"In cases such as this, where the driver does not have exclusive possession of the vehicle for a long period of time before the handgun is found, we are hesitant to impute possession of the handgun solely on control of the vehicle as evidence of intent," wrote the judge.

In addition, Jones made no incriminating statements about the handgun found during the inventory of the car, and his actions of reaching around the floorboard and other seats could be because he was moving alcohol containers. The evidence showed an open bottle of gin on the hump of the front passenger side of the vehicle, unopened beer cans on the front floorboard, and an open can of beer was on the rear floorboard behind the driver's seat.

The circumstantial evidence was inadequate to support an inference of intent to carry a handgun without a license beyond a reasonable doubt.

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  2. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  3. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  4. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  5. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

ADVERTISEMENT