Destin Jones v. State of Indiana, 87 N.E.3d 450

Late-night thefts in Terre Haute: Jones and an accomplice stole from several homes, then planned to rob a Speedway gas station.
At ~2:00 a.m. they approached the station masked, with objects resembling guns, lurked near the entrance, advanced several times, then removed masks/hoods, emptied their hands, and entered the store; Jones burglarized the back office and ransacked the manager’s safe while customers distracted the cashier.
Police later recovered the clothing used at the station, stolen property, and firearms; Jones was charged with 21 offenses and convicted of nine, including burglary, six thefts, and merged convictions for attempted robbery and conspiracy to rob the Speedway.
Jones raised an abandonment defense for the attempt and conspiracy counts, arguing he voluntarily withdrew before committing robbery; the trial court instructed the jury on abandonment, which the jury rejected.
On appeal, the Court of Appeals vacated the attempt conviction (finding abandonment plausible) but affirmed conspiracy; the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, addressed whether abandonment applies to conspiracy, and reviewed sufficiency of the evidence to disprove abandonment.

Issue	State's Argument	Jones's Argument	Held
Whether abandonment is a defense to conspiracy	Abandonment applies per statute to attempt, conspiracy, and aiding/inducing	Abandonment available for conspiracy (Jones raised it)	Abandonment is available for conspiracy when it occurs after the prohibited conduct of conspiracy but before the underlying crime is completed or inevitable
Whether evidence disproved Jones’s abandonment beyond a reasonable doubt	Jury could infer abandonment was not voluntary because external factors (busy store/risk of detection) caused withdrawal	Jones voluntarily abandoned attempt and conspiracy by removing masks/hoods and emptying hands before entering	Sufficient evidence supported jury finding abandonment was not voluntary (at least one element disproved), so convictions affirmed

Smith v. State, 636 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 1994) (abandonment is a defense to attempt and conspiracy)
Sheckles v. State, 501 N.E.2d 1053 (Ind. 1986) (abandonment must occur after attempt conduct but before completion)
Woodford v. State, 488 N.E.2d 1121 (Ind. 1986) (definition of when attempt conduct occurs; abandonment statutory interpretation)
Barnes v. State, 378 N.E.2d 839 (Ind. 1978) (abandonment cannot occur after completion of the underlying crime)
Brownlow v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1374 (Ind. 1980) (elements of abandonment: voluntary, complete, and prevention of underlying crime)
Babin v. State, 609 N.E.2d 3 (Ind. Ct. App. 1993) (abandonment voluntariness can be disproved by evidence of fear of discovery)
Pyle v. State, 476 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 1985) (abandonment not voluntary if withdrawal is prompted by unexpected detection risk)
Norton v. State, 408 N.E.2d 514 (Ind. 1980) (abandonment must originate with accused; external factors negate voluntariness)