ILNews

Judges find enhancement doesn't violate double jeopardy principles

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals tackled an issue of first impression in a case involving double jeopardy principles. A defendant’s sentence was enhanced under the Firearm Enhancement Statute following a conviction for reckless homicide.

In John G. Cooper v. State of Indiana, No. 32A05-1005-CR-309, John Cooper challenged his aggregate 13-year sentence for reckless homicide, which included a five-year enhancement under the Firearm Enhancement Statute. Cooper was convicted of Class C felony reckless homicide and the jury determined the state proved the firearm enhancement beyond a reasonable doubt. He claimed the evidence was insufficient to support the enhancement and that double jeopardy principles bar the enhancement because the conviction and enhancement were based on the single act of killing Michael Gelinas with a firearm.

Cooper suspected his wife was having an affair with Gelinas and purchased a shotgun and shells several days before confronting Gelinas at his home. An altercation ensued and Gelinas was shot and killed while he and Cooper wrestled. Cooper claimed he went to the home just to scare Gelinas.

The appellate judges affirmed there was sufficient evidence to support the enhancement, finding the state was able to prove Cooper knowingly or intentionally used a firearm to commit a reckless act.

In addressing the double jeopardy issue, the judges had to look to other jurisdictions for guidance because no Indiana court has squarely addressed this issue. Several of those jurisdictions have concluded that firearm sentencing enhancements similar to Indiana’s don’t raise double jeopardy concerns because the enhancement is merely a cumulative punishment rather than a separate offense, wrote Judge John Baker.

“We agree with those jurisdictions recognizing that sentencing enhancements are not offenses for double jeopardy purposes in circumstances such as the one before us. Indeed, the Firearm Enhancement Statute only prescribes an additional penalty for felonies that are committed with the use of a firearm,” he wrote.

Judge Baker also pointed to Joshua Nicoson v. State of Indiana, No. 32S04-1003-CR-150, in which a split Indiana Supreme Court recently held that state statute says that the use of a firearm can be the grounds for a sentence enhancement and doesn’t violate double jeopardy. Joshua Nicoson received a five-year sentence enhancement on one of his convictions of confinement with a deadly weapon.

“Again, Cooper was convicted of a single offense, for which the legislature has specifically provided a harsher penalty based on the use of a firearm. And even though the jury relied upon Cooper’s use of the shotgun for both the underlying offense and the enhancement, the legislature’s intent is clear that criminal offenses committed with firearms are to receive additional punishment,” he wrote.

The judges also affirmed Cooper’s aggregate 13-year sentence, finding it to be appropriate given the nature of the offense and his character.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

  • BS
    If he received punisment for a single crime and additional punishment (enhancement) for the same single crime, that certainly is double jeopardy. The courts can use any and all of the ambiguous language they choose to try to make their illegal, unconstitutional BS appear to be correct, when anyone but a lunatic knows better!
  • Law,
    This is baloney, however the courts have opened pandora's box, if they can use law from other jurisdictions so can defendants!
  • bullets?
    "Cooper . . . purchased a shotgun and bullets."
    Actually, he purchased a shotgun and shells. Bullets are not compatible with a shotgun. A shotgun fires shells, birdshot or buckshot, or slugs.

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. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT