Anthony P. Sharp, Jr. v. State of Indiana, 42 N.E.3d 512

On October 3, 2012, four juveniles and two adults planned and carried out a nighttime break‑in of Rodney Scott’s home intending to commit theft; the group forced entry through the rear door.
The homeowner awakened, retrieved a handgun, confronted the intruders, and fired; one co‑perpetrator (Danzele Johnson) was killed and another (Blake Layman) was wounded.
Jose Quiroz (one participant) pleaded guilty, identified co‑defendants at his plea hearing, but at trial recanted; his plea hearing transcript was admitted over defendants’ objections.
Anthony Sharp (18) was tried jointly with co‑defendants, convicted of felony murder predicated on burglary, and sentenced to 55 years (10 years suspended on revision).
Sharp appealed arguing (1) insufficient evidence of his participation and (2) that application of Indiana’s felony‑murder doctrine (per Palmer) was incorrect; the Court of Appeals addressed and rejected both claims but revised the sentence.
The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, treated Sharp’s claim as a sufficiency challenge, and—drawing on distinctions from Palmer and related cases—reversed the felony‑murder conviction and remanded for entry of a burglary conviction and resentencing.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence supports felony‑murder conviction (perpetration of burglary)	State: group entry and theft intent make any co‑participant liable for felony murder when a co‑perpetrator dies	Sharp: he was unarmed, did not engage in violent/threatening conduct that caused the death; felony‑murder inapplicable under Palmer	Reversed felony‑murder; evidence insufficient to sustain felony‑murder because appellants were unarmed and did not create the dangerous, violent situation Palmer contemplates; remand to enter burglary conviction and resentence
Whether Palmer should be overruled	State: prior precedent controls; Sharp waived broad attack on Palmer	Sharp: asks Court to reconsider Palmer’s application to facts like these	Court declines to overturn Palmer but distinguishes it; reviews Sharp’s claim as sufficiency challenge and applies Palmer’s principles narrowly
Whether appellate courts may address waived claims on the merits	State: argues claim waived for failure to move to dismiss	Sharp: urges reconsideration regardless	Court: longstanding practice allows merits review despite waiver when appropriate; proceeds to decide on transferred posture
Proper remedy on reversal	State: uphold conviction	Sharp: reversal of felony‑murder; at least resentencing	Court: reverse felony‑murder, instruct trial court to enter class B burglary conviction and resentence accordingly

Palmer v. State, 704 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 1999) (articulates limits of felony‑murder when defendant’s violent conduct foreseeably causes death)
Jenkins v. State, 726 N.E.2d 268 (Ind. 2000) (upholds felony‑murder where defendants engaged in violent, threatening conduct that produced a lethal risk)
Forney v. State, 742 N.E.2d 934 (Ind. 2001) (affirms accomplice liability for felony murder where defendant’s instructions produced armed, dangerous conduct by co‑perpetrator)
Treadway v. State, 924 N.E.2d 621 (Ind. 2010) (standard for sufficiency review: view evidence and reasonable inferences supporting the verdict without reweighing)