Cornelius Hines v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. LEXIS 429
| Ind. | 2015Background
- While incarcerated, Hines lunged at a female correctional officer, struck her in the ribs, pinned her against a wall, held her mouth/face, and banged her head against a cabinet/wall; the officer suffered bruising, a cut, and a concussion.
- State charged Hines with Criminal Confinement (Class C felony) and Battery as an aggravated offense (Class D felony); a jury convicted on both counts.
- Trial court imposed concurrent sentences: eight years for confinement and three years for battery; Court of Appeals affirmed.
- Hines appealed alleging violations of Indiana common-law and constitutional double jeopardy protections and sought Appellate Rule 7(B) review of sentence appropriateness.
- The Supreme Court considered (1) applicability of the continuous crime doctrine, (2) double jeopardy under the "actual evidence" test of the Indiana Constitution, and (3) sentence appropriateness.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Applicability of continuous crime doctrine | State: doctrines apply only where defendant is charged multiple times with the same continuous offense | Hines: pushing and pinning were one continuous transaction meriting single conviction | Court: doctrine limited to multiple charges of the same continuous statutory offense; does not apply here |
| Double jeopardy — actual evidence test under Indiana Const. Art. I § 14 | State: evidence differentiated—lunge/rib strike for battery; headlock/pinning for confinement | Hines: reasonable possibility jury used same evidentiary facts for both convictions (same force/act) | Court: reasonable possibility existed jury relied on same evidence for both; battery conviction vacated; confinement affirmed |
| Common-law double jeopardy re: duplicate enhancement (same bodily injury) | State: enhancements were proper | Hines: both convictions enhanced based on same bodily injury, violating common-law double jeopardy | Court: unnecessary to decide after vacating battery conviction |
| Sentence appropriateness under App. R. 7(B) | State: aggravating nature and injuries support max term | Hines: mental illness, mitigation and not among worst offenders warrant reduction | Court: independent review finds eight-year confinement sentence not inappropriate; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (establishes statutory-elements and actual-evidence tests for Indiana double jeopardy)
- Eddy v. State, 496 N.E.2d 24 (Ind. 1986) (defines "continuous" felony transaction in felony-murder context)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (same-evidence use of proof for multiple convictions does not alone establish double jeopardy)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (explains how to apply actual-evidence test and sources to identify facts jury relied upon)
- Lowrimore v. State, 728 N.E.2d 860 (Ind. 2000) (found reasonable possibility jury used same evidence for confinement and murder; double jeopardy analysis)
- Hardley v. State, 893 N.E.2d 1140 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (discusses allocation of specific evidence to separate charges and state pleading strategy)