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. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT