ILNews

Mail not hearsay, COA rules in affirming drug, gun convictions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

A Fort Wayne man’s convictions on multiple cocaine-dealing and felony weapons charges were affirmed Tuesday after the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled on an issue of first impression, indicating that he was not prejudiced by mail. Lamont Carpenter asserted the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted mail containing his name and address because it was hearsay.

Carpenter also claimed on appeal that the trial court improperly bifurcated his trial on a weapons charge and that simultaneous convictions of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and possession of a handgun with altered identifying marks exposed him to double jeopardy.

Fort Wayne police executed a search warrant in January 2013 on Carpenter’s apartment after a confidential informant made controlled buys of cocaine on multiple occasions. Police found about 100 grams each of cocaine and marijuana, a semiautomatic pistol with the serial number removed, and about $1,400 in cash.

A jury convicted Carpenter of five counts of Class A felony dealing in cocaine, Class B felony unlawful possession of a handgun by a serious violent felon, Class C felony possession of a handgun with altered identifying marks, and Class D felony possession of marijuana.

“Carpenter argues that, because the jury received the statutory citation for possession of a firearm by an SVF, his trial was not completely bifurcated, which prejudiced him. We disagree,” Judge Melissa May wrote for the panel in Lamont Carpenter v. State of Indiana, 02A05-1309-CR-467.

Counsel for Carpenter argued that the judge gave jurors instructions that cited the statute, I.C. 35-47-4-5, which referred to serious violent felons. This could have prejudiced Carpenter if jurors looked up the statute. May, however, wrote the that judge had warned jurors against doing their own research, and evidence showed the jury didn’t know he was a serious violent felon.

“Carpenter has not demonstrated he was prejudiced by the partial bifurcation of his trial,” the panel wrote.

Neither was Carpenter biased by mail with his name and address that was admitted after police collected it during the search. The panel held the mail was not hearsay.

“While this is an issue of first impression in Indiana, a majority of the courts from other states that have considered the issue have held the prohibition against the admission of hearsay is not violated when mail found during an investigation is introduced at trial to demonstrate the defendant’s name and address were on mail found in a specific location,” May wrote, citing authority from Florida, North Carolina and Virginia.

Finally, the court concluded, “Carpenter was not subjected to double jeopardy when he was convicted of possession of a firearm by a SVF and possession of a handgun with altered identifying marks."
 

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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. 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.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT