Damon Hohman v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1603-CR-442
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 1, 2016Background
- Hohman and McDowell were former partners; McDowell was dating another man in Dec. 2014.
- On Dec. 9, 2014, McDowell woke to Hohman on top of her, pinning her to the bed and threatening her with a kitchen knife.
- McDowell discovered a cut on her hand; Hohman later admitted cutting her and McDowell identified the knife as from her kitchen set; the knife itself was not recovered.
- McDowell escaped through a second-floor bathroom window; police arrested Hohman thereafter.
- Hohman was tried twice: initially acquitted of burglary and convicted of several misdemeanor counts; a second jury acquitted him of rape but convicted him of criminal confinement (elevated to Level 3 for being armed) and battery by means of a deadly weapon (Level 5).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that a deadly weapon was used to elevate confinement and battery | State: McDowell’s testimony, her cut, recognition of the knife, and a missing knife support use of a deadly weapon | Hohman: No recovered knife and alleged witness unreliability create reasonable doubt that a knife was used | Court: Evidence and reasonable inferences (threatening with a knife, cut, admission, missing knife) suffice to sustain convictions |
| Double jeopardy under Indiana Constitution (actual evidence test) | State: Separate factual acts (pinning/threatening vs. cutting) support separate convictions | Hohman: Same evidentiary facts were used to convict for both offenses, violating Article 1, §14 | Court: No violation — jury could have relied on distinct facts for each offense (confinement = pinning/threat; battery = cut) |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Cross v. State, 15 N.E.3d 569 (definition of same-offense test under Indiana Constitution)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (framework for double jeopardy analysis)
- Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (actual evidence test explanation)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (clarifies overlap of elements under actual evidence test)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (requiring more than a logical possibility of same facts)
- Strong v. State, 29 N.E.3d 760 (standard of review for double jeopardy claims)
- Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (distinguishes other double jeopardy-related construction rules)
- Sistrunk v. State, 36 N.E.3d 1051 (addresses enhancements based on same behavior)
- Gates v. State, 759 N.E.2d 631 (holding that a single weapon can enhance separate offenses)