Carter v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1850
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Carter and three others broke into a Hancock County home to steal money in May 2010.
- Carter threatened one resident and shot another during the break-in.
- State charged Carter with attempted murder and attempted robbery as Class A felonies and burglary as a Class B felony; burglary later amended to Class A.
- Carter was found guilty on all counts and deemed an habitual offender.
- On appeal, Carter challenges prosecutorial misconduct, jury instructions, amendment of the charging information, and double jeopardy arising from the elevated burglary and robbery convictions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Prosecutorial misconduct in closing | Carter asserts misconduct from comments on silence and credibility. | State contends remarks were inappropriate but not fundamental error. | Not fundamental error; conduct harmless given overwhelming evidence. |
| Jury instructions on elements | Carter argues missing statutory language in instructions. | State argues elements were properly instructed. | No error; elements of each offense properly instructed. |
| Amendment to include habitual offender | Amendment was late and lacked adequate notice. | Good cause and lack of prejudice support late filing. | No reversible error; good cause and lack of prejudice found; continuance not required. |
| Double jeopardy from burglary and robbery | Same bodily injury used to elevate both counts; convictions cannot stand. | Jury could have treated injuries separately; no double jeopardy shown. | Double jeopardy occurred; vacate Class A burglary and remand for reduction/resentencing. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. State, 816 N.E.2d 925 (Ind.Ct.App. 2004) (standard for determining prosecutorial misconduct and grave peril)
- Hand v. State, 863 N.E.2d 386 (Ind.Ct.App. 2007) (harmless error when overwhelming independent evidence exists)
- Collins v. State, 643 N.E.2d 375 (Ind.Ct.App. 1994) (remarks not evidence; prejudice analyzed in context)
- Frink v. State, 568 N.E.2d 535 (Ind. 1991) (hearing on amendment required; prejudice consideration)
- Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (Ind. 2002) (double jeopardy when same injury supports multiple felonies)
- Benson v. State, 762 N.E.2d 748 (Ind. 2002) (extremely narrow fundamental error standard)