Billy Luke v. State of Indiana
51 N.E.3d 401
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Luke, convicted earlier of public indecency and placed on probation, was subject to a no-contact order forbidding contact with several female pharmacy employees and defining “contact” to include harassment, stalking, intimidation, threats, and physical force.
- While on probation (winter 2014), employees observed Luke standing outside his grandmother’s house—adjacent to the pharmacy parking lot—staring at them repeatedly; surveillance video and photographs corroborated this behavior.
- The State charged Luke in Superior Court (Cause No. 11) with three counts of invasion of privacy (Class D felonies) for violating the no-contact order between January 3–7, 2014; a jury convicted him.
- The State also prosecuted Luke in Circuit Court (Cause No. 19) for stalking (Class C felony) and related counts based on a broader course of conduct from 2012–2014; a jury convicted him of stalking.
- Evidence at both trials overlapped: the January 2014 conduct, surveillance video, a photograph, prior vandalism incidents, and recorded admissions/letters suggesting intent to harass.
- The Superior Court revoked Luke’s probation based on the invasion-of-privacy convictions. On appeal the court affirmed the invasion convictions and revocation, reversed the stalking conviction on double jeopardy grounds, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Luke) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy: whether invasion-of-privacy and stalking convictions violate double jeopardy | The stalking conviction was based on broader evidence (including 2013 vandalism and letters) and involved an additional victim (K.R.), so it is distinct | Stalking trial relied on the same evidentiary facts (notably Jan 3–7, 2014 conduct and the same no-contact order), so convictions amount to being punished twice for the same offense | Court: Double jeopardy violation under the actual-evidence test; vacated the stalking conviction and remanded for resentencing |
| Admission of other-bad-acts evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Prior vandalism, letters, and admissions showed intent, motive, and illuminated the relationship and pattern—therefore admissible | Such evidence was prejudicial and not necessary to prove the narrow no-contact violation in Jan 2014; should have been excluded under Rule 403/404(b) | Court: No abuse of discretion; evidence admissible to show intent/motive and not unduly prejudicial |
| Sufficiency of evidence for invasion of privacy | Luke’s conduct was intentional, menacing, and constituted harassment (as defined in the no-contact order); his statements and prior acts support intent | Mere presence on his own porch/driveway is insufficient to constitute ‘‘contact’’—Hunter requires more than mere presence; no fair notice that standing outside violated the order | Court: Evidence sufficient; conduct went beyond mere presence (staring, ignoring police warnings, threatening letters), jurors could infer intent; convictions affirmed |
| Jury instruction on “harassment” | Instruction appropriate because the no-contact order defined contact to include harassment; harassment definition explains the operative term | Harassment is a distinct crime requiring proof of victim fear; instructing on harassment misstates the law for invasion of privacy and risks prejudice | Court: No abuse of discretion; instruction matched the no-contact order language and was properly given |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (establishes same-elements and actual-evidence double jeopardy framework)
- Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (explains the actual-evidence test and factors for assessing reasonable possibility of overlap)
- Burton v. State, 665 N.E.2d 924 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) (similar fact pattern; double jeopardy barred conviction where stalking and invasion convictions rested on identical facts)
- Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2001) (discusses evaluations of reasonable possibility and when overlap is speculative)
- Hunter v. State, 883 N.E.2d 1161 (Ind. 2008) (‘‘mere presence’’ alone does not always constitute prohibited contact; probation condition ambiguity can defeat revocation)
- Boone v. State, 728 N.E.2d 135 (Ind. 2000) (sets the two-step Rule 404(b) admissibility test: relevance for non-propensity purpose and Rule 403 balancing)