Ashonta Kenya Jackson v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. LEXIS 153
| Ind. | 2016Background
- In October 2013 Ashonta Jackson organized and supervised three armed robberies in Anderson, Indiana (two of a liquor store and one of a bank); accomplices committed the robberies, and Jackson waited nearby and divided proceeds.
- Jackson was charged with three counts of B-felony robbery, one count of C-felony corrupt business influence (Indiana RICO), and a habitual-offender allegation; a jury convicted on all counts.
- On direct appeal the Court of Appeals reversed the corrupt-business-influence conviction, holding Indiana RICO requires a continuity element (that predicates amount to or threaten continued criminal activity).
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide whether Indiana’s statutory definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” includes a continuity requirement.
- The Supreme Court held the Indiana RICO definition is self-contained and does not include a continuity element, but requires the State to prove the predicate offenses were "not isolated," making continuity a relevant (but not statutory) consideration.
- Applying that standard, the Court found sufficient evidence (Jackson as mastermind; escalating sophistication; distinct roles; short timeframe) that the robberies were not isolated, and affirmed the corrupt-business-influence conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana RICO’s definition of “pattern of racketeering activity” requires proof of continuity (that predicates amount to or threaten continued criminal activity) | State: Indiana statute defines "pattern" without a continuity element; relatedness and “not isolated” suffice | Jackson: Federal RICO interpretation (H.J.) requires continuity; thus Indiana RICO requires continuity | Held: No separate continuity element in statute; continuity is relevant evidence but not an independent statutory element |
| Whether the three robberies were "not isolated" such that they formed a RICO pattern | State: Evidence shows Jackson coordinated, supervised, and escalated crimes, supporting inference they were not isolated | Jackson: Short time frame and limited number of incidents do not show a threat of continued criminal activity | Held: Sufficient evidence the crimes were not isolated given Jackson’s mastermind role, repeated planning, escalating sophistication, and likely continuation absent interruption |
Key Cases Cited
- H.J. Inc. v. Northwestern Bell Tel. Co., 492 U.S. 229 (1989) (interpreting federal RICO to require relatedness and continuity)
- Sedima, S.P.R.L. v. Imrex Co., 473 U.S. 479 (1985) (discussing RICO definitions and statutory language differences)
- Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008) (noting Indiana’s enactment of a RICO statute)
- Kollar v. State, 556 N.E.2d 936 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (Court of Appeals previously applied continuity concept following H.J.)
- Waldon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (followed Kollar in treating continuity as part of pattern analysis)