Chad A. George v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.), 39A01-1612-CR-2740

Chad A. George and Tina Cosby had an on-again/off-again relationship with prior physical violence in November 2015.
On December 23, 2015, George appeared at Cosby’s apartment, pushed his way inside, smelled of alcohol, and ignored her requests to leave.
A physical struggle followed: Cosby was shoved, grabbed by the hair and neck, a chair was broken, and Cosby sustained a bloody lip, a defensive forearm wound, and facial redness.
Neighbors called 911; officers detained George and documented Cosby’s injuries and torn clothing.
George was charged with Level 3 burglary (resulting in bodily injury), Level 5 criminal confinement (resulting in bodily injury), attempted strangulation, Class A domestic battery, and public intoxication; convicted of burglary, criminal confinement, and domestic battery; sentenced to an aggregate 16 years.
The State conceded on appeal that using the same bodily injury to support all three convictions raised a double jeopardy problem.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence support intent to commit a felony when George entered?	State: Circumstantial evidence (forced entry, prior assault, immediate violence) supports inference of intent to commit a felony/violence.	George: He entered to talk, not to commit a felony; no specific criminal intent at entry.	Affirmed — jury reasonably could infer concurrent intent to commit violence/felony at entry.
Double Jeopardy: Do convictions of burglary (bodily injury), criminal confinement (bodily injury), and domestic battery violate double jeopardy when based on same injury?	State (on appeal): Concedes the convictions overlap because the same bodily injury supported all three convictions; remedy is reduction of two convictions.	George: Argued convictions impermissibly used same injury to enhance multiple offenses.	Reversed in part — convictions for criminal confinement reduced to Level 6 and domestic battery reduced to Class B; remanded for resentencing.

Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standard for sufficiency review and reasonable-inference test)
Robinson v. State, 541 N.E.2d 531 (Ind. 1989) (burglary requires specific intent coincident with breaking and entering)
Taylor v. State, 514 N.E.2d 290 (Ind. 1987) (intent to commit felony may be inferred from circumstances)
Gilliam v. State, 508 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. 1987) (burglars rarely announce intent at entry; intent may be inferred)
Eby v. State, 290 N.E.2d 89 (Ind. App. 1972) (concurrent intents and inference of intent to commit violence when confrontation is foreseeable)
Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012) (upholding burglary conviction based on circumstantial evidence of intent)
Carter v. State, 956 N.E.2d 167 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (using same injury to prove multiple offenses can violate double jeopardy)
Caldwell v. State, 43 N.E.3d 258 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (reducing convictions when same injuries used to enhance multiple charges)