ILNews

Religious-worship burglary enhancement doesn’t violate constitutions

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals ruled against a man who argued the enhancement of his burglary conviction to a Class B felony because he burgled a church violated the federal and state constitutions. In the first impression issue, the judges held the enhancement doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment or Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.

Joshua Burke was charged with Class B felony burglary for his role in a break-in at an Indianapolis church. Indiana Code Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii) enhances burglary from a Class C felony to a Class B felony if the building or structure burgled is used for religious worship.

In Joshua Burke v. State of Indiana, No. 49A02-1006-CR-660, the judges analyzed whether this enhancement violates the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment over objections from the state that Burke argued in his motion to dismiss only that the statute violated the state constitution. Burke’s appeal is the first time in Indiana someone has argued that any statutory provision enhancing a crime when a structure used for religious worship is involved violates the Establishment Clause.

The Court of Appeals cited People v. Carter (Carter I), 592 N.E.2d 491, 495 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992), in which the Appeals Court of Illinois held that a provision allowing a trial court to consider as an aggravating factor the fact a crime occurred in or on the grounds of a place of worship immediately before, during, or after worship services, doesn’t violate the Establishment Clause. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals agreed in Carter v. Peters (Carter II), 26 F.3d 697 (7th Circ. 1994), which it received after Carter’s habeas petition was denied in lower court. Both courts found the provision’s primary effect was not on people deciding whether to attend worship services, but on people who commit crimes there, wrote Judge Nancy Vaidik.

Judge Vaidik pointed out that comparable Establishment Clause challenges in other jurisdictions have reached the same conclusion.

“Section 35-43-2-1(1)(B)(ii)’s purpose is not to give added protection to structures used for religious worship but to ensure the appropriate sentence for the offender,” she wrote. “It reflects a legislative recognition that: (1) structures used for religious worship have a ‘traditional absence of security measures’ and are thus easy targets of crime, Carter II, 26 F.3d at 699, (2) crimes against structures used for religious worship are ‘more repugnant to the community,’ Carter I, 592 N.E.2d at 497, and (3) it takes more time to reform and rehabilitate those offenders who commit acts society deems more repulsive.”

The appellate court also concluded the statute doesn’t materially burden the right to be free from government preference for a particular religion or religion in general under Article 1, Section 4 of the Indiana Constitution.

“To the extent that the provision may benefit structures used for religious worship in the form of added protection, such benefit is too slight to frustrate Article 1, Section 4’s core constitutional value. That is, such benefit does not amount to an impairment of such magnitude that the right to be free from government preference for a particular religion or religion in general is unconstitutionally burdened,” she 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

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT