Borum v. State
951 N.E.2d 619
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Borum was charged with attempted carjacking (Class B felony) and attempted robbery (Class C felony) for actions on April 22, 2010 in Indianapolis.
- Henson, in a running pickup with others, was inside the truck when Borum entered from the driver’s side and demanded money using a threatening tone; he revved the engine and indicated he would take the truck.
- Gibson and Douglas returned to the truck, Borum exited, again demanded money, and subjects described him as potentially having a weapon; he fled down an alley after the confrontation.
- Police identified Borum from victim statements; he was arrested and identified by the victims at the scene.
- Borum was tried before a jury on Counts I and II; he testified about a separate motive (drug transaction) but the State later presented contrary evidence after his testimony.
- The court sentenced Borum to 10 years on Count I and 4 years on Count II, to be served concurrently, plus a 10-year habitual offender enhancement for an aggregate 20-year sentence; an habitual offender finding was entered after a separate phase.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the convictions violate double jeopardy under actual evidence | Borum argues same facts supported both counts under actual evidence test | State contends separate facts for each count negate overlap | No double jeopardy; separate facts supported two convictions |
| Whether the single larceny rule requires merging counts | Counts involve taking different property but same timing | Counts reflect distinct acts and independent targets; not one larceny | No merge; two separate offenses occurred |
| Whether the continuous crime doctrine applies to merge charges | Actions occurred in quick succession in one setting | Doctrine should not apply to separate chargeable crimes | Does not apply; two distinct crimes |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (two-part test for 'same offense' under Indiana Constitution)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (examines actual evidence vs. separate facts; protracted episodes)
- Taylor v. State, 879 N.E.2d 1198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (single design/independent acts considered for larceny rule)
- Goudy v. State, 689 N.E.2d 686 (Ind. 1997) (illustrates multiple offenses within context of double jeopardy)
- Walker v. State, 903 N.E.2d 1022 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (two robberies in separate businesses not merging under single larceny rule)
- Firestone v. State, 838 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (continuous-crime doctrine does not apply to distinct offenses timed separately)
- Stout v. State, 479 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1985) (garage as part of home; circumstances of larceny analyzed)
- Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1994) (merging theft convictions when single larceny doctrine applies)