Brooks Berg v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 697
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Early morning traffic stop of Brooks Berg escalated into a high-speed pursuit; Berg reached ~130 mph, drove erratically in heavy fog, lost control, crossed into a ditch, hit a tree, and the vehicle flipped; passenger uninjured.
- Berg was charged with multiple counts; relevant here: operating while intoxicated (OWI) enhanced to a Class D felony based on a prior OWI within five years, and reckless driving (Class B misdemeanor) for driving at an unreasonably high speed endangering others.
- A jury convicted Berg of resisting law enforcement, OWI (Class D felony), reckless driving (Class B misdemeanor), and the court adjudicated him a habitual substance offender; aggregate sentence of eight years was imposed.
- On appeal Berg argued the dual convictions violated Indiana double jeopardy doctrine under the Richardson actual-evidence test because the State used the same evidence of dangerous driving to prove both reckless driving and the endangerment element of OWI.
- The State conceded that the evidentiary overlap implicated Richardson and sought remand, but the Court of Appeals reviewed the issue de novo.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether convicting Berg of both OWI (Class D felony) and reckless driving violated Indiana double jeopardy under the Richardson actual-evidence test | State conceded that the evidence proving reckless driving was the same evidence used to prove the endangerment element of OWI and thus agreed remand was appropriate | Berg argued the convictions rested on the same evidentiary facts for both offenses so double jeopardy barred both convictions | Court rejected both positions: no Richardson violation because OWI required proof of intoxication (and here an enhanced felony status based on a prior conviction), so the evidentiary footprints were not identical; convictions affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (establishes statutory-elements and actual-evidence tests for Indiana double jeopardy)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (clarifies actual-evidence test requires identical evidentiary footprints for all elements)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (explains "reasonable possibility" standard assessing whether jury may have relied on same facts)
- Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013) (applies actual-evidence test to elements of both offenses; evidentiary independence can defeat Richardson claim)
- Guyton v. State, 771 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 2002) (discusses common-law double jeopardy limits distinct from Richardson and when enhancements duplicate behavior)