Charles Robinson v. State of Indiana
2016 Ind. App. LEXIS 214
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Jan 25 and Feb 17, 2015, Charles Robinson entered the same Walmart, opened a $299 home-security camera box, and on each occasion the box was found opened or damaged in the store; some parts were missing on Jan 25 and the box was unsellable on Feb 17.
- Walmart asset-protection associate Darren Koors reviewed surveillance, identified Robinson on the Jan 25 footage as the only customer who selected that item, and recognized him on Feb 17; police detained Robinson and his fiancée Deborah Hill on Feb 17.
- Robinson admitted appearing in the Jan 25 photo and said he returned the camera on Feb 17 because Koors was "on to him;" Hill denied knowledge of the thefts.
- The State charged multiple theft counts (including enhanced Level 6 counts based on priors) and one Level 5 corrupt business influence (Indiana RICO) count premised on a pattern of at least two thefts.
- The trial court refused severance; the jury convicted Robinson of two misdemeanor thefts and corrupt business influence. The court merged the thefts into the RICO conviction and sentenced on the RICO count. On appeal the court reversed the RICO conviction, reinstated two Level 6 theft convictions, and remanded for sentencing on them.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Robinson's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether charges should be severed | Joinder proper because offenses were connected and necessary to prove RICO | Severance required (motion argued theft counts should be separate) | Denial of severance affirmed — offenses constituted a single scheme/modus operandi and evidence was not complex or confusing |
| Sufficiency of evidence for Jan 25 theft | Surveillance and witness testimony tied Robinson to selection and disappearance of box; supports theft | Argued gap in custody of box and opportunity for others to tamper — challenges proof he removed contents | Jan 25 theft conviction supported; evidence sufficient |
| Sufficiency of evidence for corrupt business influence (RICO) — "pattern" element | Two similar thefts from same store within a month constitute a pattern under statute | Two shoplifting incidents were isolated/sporadic and insufficient to show a non‑isolated RICO pattern | Reversed RICO conviction — two shoplifting incidents held insufficient to prove the required non‑isolated pattern and connection to an ongoing enterprise |
| Remedy following RICO reversal | Sustain lesser offenses or remand | (Robinson sought reversal) | Court remanded to enter convictions and sentences for two Level 6 theft counts already supported by record |
Key Cases Cited
- Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015) (distinguishes joinder as of right from discretionary joinder and standard of review)
- Ben-Yisrayl v. State, 690 N.E.2d 1141 (Ind. 1997) (factors for discretionary severance review)
- Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767 (Ind. 2016) (Indiana RICO does not require proof of future threat but requires that predicate acts be "not isolated")
- Flinn v. State, 563 N.E.2d 536 (Ind. 1990) (pattern must be tied to control of property/enterprise; two predicates do not automatically establish RICO)
- Bell v. State, 31 N.E.3d 495 (Ind. 2015) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (reversal required if proof lacking on an element)
- AGS Capital Corp. v. Prod. Action Int’l, LLC, 884 N.E.2d 294 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (discussion of RICO’s purpose to reach organized, systematic criminality)
- Chavez v. State, 722 N.E.2d 885 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (double jeopardy considerations when convicting for RICO and predicate offenses)
- Mendenhall v. Goldsmith, 59 F.3d 685 (7th Cir. 1995) (federal RICO intent and legislative purpose discussion)
- Ball v. State, 945 N.E.2d 252 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (remand to enter judgment on lesser-included offense when greater offense reversed)