ILNews

Justices: State must prove loaded gun

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The state has the burden to prove a gun was loaded when charging a defendant with pointing a firearm as a Class D felony, but it is up to the defendant to raise the issue when the state's evidence has not done so, the Indiana Supreme Court has decided.

In Henry J. Adkins v. State of Indiana, No. 20S03-0709-CR-374, the Supreme Court Wednesday upheld Henry Adkins' conviction of pointing a firearm as a Class D felony because during the trial he failed to bring up the issue of whether the gun was loaded or not. If it could be shown he pointed an unloaded gun, he would have been convicted only of a Class A misdemeanor.

Adkins presented an issue regarding the jury instructions, "... (I)f the State proved [all] of the elements of pointing a firearm, but the defendant proved by a preponderance of the evidence that the firearm was unloaded, then, and only then, may you find the defendant guilty of pointing an unloaded firearm."

Adkins contended the state, not the defendant, has the burden of proving the "unloaded" element.

Adkins is correct, the Supreme Court found, because it interpreted Indiana Code Section 35-47-4-3(b) to mean an unloaded gun is a mitigating factor that reduces a defendant's culpability from a felony to a misdemeanor, Justice Frank Sullivan wrote.

The high court compared the act of proving a gun was unloaded to the matter of establishing "sudden heat" in prosecutions of murder and held it applies with respect to Class A misdemeanor pointing a firearm.

If a defendant is charged with the Class D felony offense but wants to be convicted of the Class A misdemeanor, the defendant only bears the burden of placing the issue of whether the gun is unloaded when the state's evidence has failed to do so. Then, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the firearm was loaded.

In this case, however, Adkins never offered evidence to suggest the firearm was unloaded when he pointed it at another person. In fact, there is evidence to show the gun was loaded when he pointed it, because afterward, witnesses testified they heard gunshots when Adkins was outside. Because of this, the instruction given by the trial court constituted a harmless error, Justice Sullivan wrote.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  3. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT