Merged conviction violates double jeopardy

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated a defendant's conviction of conspiracy to deal methamphetamine because it violated Indiana's double jeopardy law, but the court affirmed his conviction and sentence for dealing methamphetamine.

In today's ruling in Robert R. Gregory Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 15A01-0708-CR-348, Gregory raised several issues on appeal, arguing evidence supporting his convictions was obtained before police had a valid search warrant, a witness's testimony shouldn't have been allowed at trial, there was prosecutorial misconduct, and his sentence was inappropriate.

Gregory and two co-workers decided they would make methamphetamine at co-worker Justin Callaway's mother's home while she was away. The three men purchased various items used to produce methamphetamine and put the items in a barn on the property. Police received a tip Gregory was making methamphetamine on the property and visited it under the guise of questioning Callaway on an earlier domestic battery incident he had with his mother. Police later got a search warrant and found the items used to make methamphetamine in the barn. The state charged Gregory with dealing methamphetamine and conspiracy to deal.

Gregory filed a motion to suppress evidence recovered from the barn, alleging the search was conducted before police had the warrant. The trial court denied the motion. During trial, he also objected to the admission of the evidence on the same grounds. Again, the trial court denied the motion. He was convicted and sentenced to 20 years in prison.

In order to avoid a double jeopardy violation, the trial court merged the judgment on the conspiracy conviction into the conviction for dealing. The appellate court found this act of merging didn't erase the issue of double jeopardy and remanded the cause to the trial court to vacate the conspiracy conviction.

"A trial court's act of merging, without also vacating the conviction, is not sufficient to cure a double jeopardy violation," wrote Judge L. Mark Bailey.

The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions regarding the issues Gregory raised on appeal. The appellate court ruled that it was clear on the facts of the case that Gregory had no interest in the property and he was just a visitor when police searched the barn. As such, he didn't have a legitimate expectation of privacy and can't challenge the search based on the Fourth Amendment, wrote Judge Bailey.

Gregory challenged Callaway's testimony about Gregory's involvement in making the methamphetamine at his trial, arguing his statements at trial and pre-trial statements to police had numerous discrepancies and shouldn't be allowed, and that his testimony was "incredibly dubious." Gregory failed to show Callaway's statements were "incredibly dubious," and there was also circumstantial evidence to support the conviction, wrote the judge.

The majority of the appellate court also found that the prosecutor's reading of a poem about methamphetamine during voir dire and stating an opinion that methamphetamine has negative effects on the community during closing arguments did not constitute misconduct. The poem was an opinion, and it didn't regard the guilt or innocence of someone making or using the drug, wrote the judge. Even though reading a poem and then asking for juror feedback on the drug is not a very effective way to question the jury, the actions don't constitute misconduct.

The statement by the prosecutor during closing arguments was a statement of an opinion, which isn't prohibited during closing arguments.

Finally, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed Gregory's sentence finding it was appropriate based on the nature of the offense and his character.

Judge James Kirsch, concurring in part and concurring in result in part in a separate opinion, believed that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing the poem to be read and that the prosecutor's comments at closing were improper. However, these were harmless errors so he concurred with the majority in affirming Gregory's conviction and sentence.

Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.