943 N.E.2d 870
Ind. Ct. App.2011Background
- Burke burglarized True Gospel Assembly Church in October 2009, acting as lookout while accomplices damaged the church and Burke took an amplifier.
- Burke was charged with Class B felony burglary under Indiana Code 35-43-2-1(l)(B)(ii) because the structure burgled was used for religious worship.
- Burke moved to dismiss the Class B burglary count on the grounds that the statute violated the Indiana Constitution; trial court denied.
- Bench trial occurred with a stipulation of facts; Burke was found guilty as charged and sentenced to eight years with two years suspended.
- This appeal challenges the statute as violating federal Establishment Clause and Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 4.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Sec. 35-43-2-1(l)(B)(ii) violate the Establishment Clause? | Burke contends the statute favors religion by elevating penalties for crimes involving places of worship. | State argues the statute serves secular purposes and targets criminal conduct, not religion. | No Establishment Clause violation. |
| Does Sec. 35-43-2-1(l)(B)(ii) violate Indiana Constitution Article 1, Section 4? | Burke asserts government preference for religion burdens core Section 4 values. | State asserts the burden is not material and the provision has a secular purpose. | No material burden on free exercise principle; statute constitutional under Article 1, Section 4. |
| Whether the Court should treat the Article 1, Section 4 analysis like the federal Lemon test? | Burke relies on a federal-style analysis to show burden on religious liberty. | State relies on City Chapel precedent distinguishing Indiana core-value burden analysis. | Court applies City Chapel material-burden approach; not a violation. |
| Is there excessive government entanglement with religion under Lemon prong? | Statutory definition of ‘structure used for religious worship’ may entangle government with religion. | Determination is not a sweeping entanglement; it is a limited factual inquiry with incidental benefits to worship sites. | No excessive entanglement. |
Key Cases Cited
- Everson v. Bd. of Educ. of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1947) (establishment clause framework and wall of separation)
- Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (U.S. 1971) (three-part test for establishing or denying establishment implications)
- City Chapel Evangelical Free Inc. v. City of South Bend ex rel. Dept. of Redevelopment, 744 N.E.2d 443 (Ind. 2001) (Indiana core-burden analysis under Article 1, Section 4)
- Carter II, 26 F.3d 697 (7th Cir. 1994) (secular purpose and primary effect not advancing/inhibiting religion; no entanglement)
- Carter I, 592 N.E.2d 491 (Ill. App. Ct. 1992) (recognizes secular purpose and indirect benefits to worship sites; primary effect neutral)