ILNews

Merged conviction violates double jeopardy

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2008
Keywords
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.
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
2015 Distinguished Barrister &
Up and Coming Lawyer Reception

Tuesday, May 5, 2015 • 4:30 - 7:00 pm
Learn More


ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The $320,000 is the amount the school spent in litigating two lawsuits: One to release the report involving John Trimble (as noted in the story above) and one defending the discrimination lawsuit. The story above does not mention the amount spent to defend the discrimination suit, that's why the numbers don't match. Thanks for reading.

  2. $160k? Yesterday the figure was $320k. Which is it Indiana Lawyer. And even more interesting, which well connected law firm got the (I am guessing) $320k, six time was the fired chancellor received. LOL. (From yesterday's story, which I guess we were expected to forget overnight ... "According to records obtained by the Journal & Courier, Purdue spent $161,812, beginning in July 2012, in a state open records lawsuit and $168,312, beginning in April 2013, for defense in a federal lawsuit. Much of those fees were spent battling court orders to release an independent investigation by attorney John Trimble that found Purdue could have handled the forced retirement better")

  3. The numbers are harsh; 66 - 24 in the House, 40 - 10 in the Senate. And it is an idea pushed by the Democrats. Dead end? Ummm not necessarily. Just need to go big rather than go home. Nuclear option. Give it to the federal courts, the federal courts will ram this down our throats. Like that other invented right of the modern age, feticide. Rights too precious to be held up by 2000 years of civilization hang in the balance. Onward!

  4. I'm currently seeing someone who has a charge of child pornography possession, he didn't know he had it because it was attached to a music video file he downloaded when he was 19/20 yrs old and fought it for years until he couldn't handle it and plead guilty of possession. He's been convicted in Illinois and now lives in Indiana. Wouldn't it be better to give them a chance to prove to the community and their families that they pose no threat? He's so young and now because he was being a kid and downloaded music at a younger age, he has to pay for it the rest of his life? It's unfair, he can't live a normal life, and has to live in fear of what people can say and do to him because of something that happened 10 years ago? No one deserves that, and no one deserves to be labeled for one mistake, he got labeled even though there was no intent to obtain and use the said content. It makes me so sad to see someone I love go through this and it makes me holds me back a lot because I don't know how people around me will accept him...second chances should be given to those under the age of 21 at least so they can be given a chance to live a normal life as a productive member of society.

  5. It's just an ill considered remark. The Sup Ct is inherently political, as it is a core part of government, and Marbury V Madison guaranteed that it would become ever more so Supremely thus. So her remark is meaningless and she just should have not made it.... what she could have said is that Congress is a bunch of lazys and cowards who wont do their jobs so the hard work of making laws clear, oftentimes stops with the Sups sorting things out that could have been resolved by more competent legislation. That would have been a more worthwhile remark and maybe would have had some relevance to what voters do, since voters cant affect who gets appointed to the supremely un-democratic art III courts.

ADVERTISEMENT