22 N.E.3d 877
Ind. Ct. App.2014Background
- At ~1:00 a.m., Officer Hutson stopped a gold SUV after it crossed the center line and ran a stop sign; driver Bennie Stigler produced ID showing his license was suspended for life.
- Before officers arrested Stigler, Brandan Jones (the front-seat passenger) was observed to have switched into the driver’s seat; both men were handcuffed and Jones denied switching.
- Officer Hutson smelled alcohol on Jones’s breath; Stigler was charged with class C felony driving while privileges forfeited for life; Jones was charged with assisting a criminal (class D felony).
- A jury convicted both men; the trial court entered Jones’s conviction as a class A misdemeanor for sentencing purposes and suspended the jail term to probation.
- On appeal Jones conceded sufficient evidence for misdemeanor aiding but challenged elevation to a class D felony, arguing the statute requires the assister to know the assisted person committed a class C felony.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the statute elevates assisting to a felony based on the assisted person’s offense regardless of the assister’s knowledge of the felony classification.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supported conviction for assisting a criminal as a class D felony | State: Jones switched seats to shield Stigler and intended to hinder apprehension; Stigler committed a class C felony so aiding is a class D felony | Jones: To elevate to class D felony, State must prove Jones knew Stigler committed a class C felony (i.e., knowledge of felony status) | Court: Statute requires intent to hinder apprehension but not knowledge of the assisted person’s felony classification; conviction affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Atteberry v. State, 911 N.E.2d 601 (Ct. App. Ind.) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (inferences for sufficiency review)
- Thompson v. State, 804 N.E.2d 1146 (Ind.) (trier of fact chooses between competing inferences)
- Hauk v. State, 729 N.E.2d 994 (Ind. 2000) (assisting statute applies to post‑offense assistance)
- Walker v. State, 204 N.E.2d 850 (Ind. 1965) (accessory after the fact: proof of reason to believe a crime was committed)
- Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2012) (statutory interpretation principles)