Cooper v. State
940 N.E.2d 1210
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Cooper was convicted of reckless homicide (class C felony) after a six-day jury trial.
- A separate phase determined the State proved that Cooper knowingly or intentionally used a firearm in the commission of the offense.
- Cooper purchased a shotgun and destructive shells, loaded the gun, confronted Gelinas, and discharged the weapon, leading to Gelinas's death.
- The trial court sentenced Cooper to eight years for reckless homicide, plus a five-year firearm-enhancement, for a thirteen-year aggregate sentence.
- Cooper challenges (1) the sufficiency of evidence for the firearm enhancement, (2) potential double jeopardy, and (3) the overall sentence.
- The court of appeals holds that the firearm enhancement is proper, double jeopardy is not implicated, and the sentence is appropriate.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for firearm enhancement | Cooper argues the weapon-use element was not proven knowingly/intentionally. | Cooper contends enhancement cannot stand because act was not knowing/intentional to recklessly kill. | Evidence supports knowing/intentional firearm use in the reckless act. |
| Double jeopardy | Enhancement duplicatively punishes the same conduct used for recklessness. | Multiple punishment for use of firearm is barred as double jeopardy. | No double jeopardy violation; enhancement is a separate penalty for firearm use. |
| Appropriateness of the aggregate sentence | The trial court properly sentenced under the statute with enhancement. | The thirteen-year aggregate sentence may be inappropriate given circumstances. | Sentence affirmed as appropriate under the circumstances. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicoson v. State, 938 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 2010) (firearm enhancement not a separate offense; applies penalties provision)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy framework for same offense analysis)
- Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2003) (statutory enhancements and sentencing considerations)
- Hatchett v. State, 740 N.E.2d 920 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (double jeopardy concerns when same evidentiary facts establish offenses)
- Nicoson v. State, 664 N.E.2d 660 (Ind. 1990) (example cited for firearm-use consequences within penalties)