Eric Rasnick v. State of Indiana
2 N.E.3d 17
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Rasnick, on parole for burglary, was monitored by GPS during the September 25, 2011 incident.
- Rasnick and Campbell burglarized Hanover College dorm room 33, taking a laptop and three cameras; Stidham and Starks were in the car.
- Lathrop and Haynes identified Rasnick (and Campbell) at the stop scene; Rasnick’s tattoo was noted by both witnesses.
- Police recovered Lathrop’s backpack, Haynes’s laptop, and one camera from Campbell’s car; a second camera was later found damaged and a third remained unfound.
- GPS data placed Rasnick at the dorm and at the car stop, and the State introduced this evidence with limiting instructions; Rasnick admitted habitual offender status.
- Trial court denied suppression of the show-up and GPS evidence; but held GPS evidence admissible for location purposes only; Rasnick was convicted by jury and sentenced to 36 years (burglary and habitual offender enhancements).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether show-up identification was unduly suggestive | Rasnick argues the show-up was unduly suggestive due to police statements and simultaneous identification. | Rasnick contends the procedure created undue pressure and tainted identification. | Identification not unduly suggestive; independent in-court identifications supported by circumstances. |
| Whether GPS evidence was improperly admitted | Rasnick challenges admissibility and prejudice of GPS data. | GPS data is probative and value outweighed prejudice; court limited impact. | GPS evidence properly admitted with limiting measures; probative value outweighed potential prejudice. |
| Whether the evidence is sufficient to support burglary conviction | State contends evidence shows Rasnick burglarized dorm room; Rasnick disputes identity. | Rasnick argues Stidham could have committed the burglary and tattoos, etc., create doubt. | Sufficient evidence of guilt; eyewitness identification, stolen items, and GPS data support burglary conviction. |
| Whether the sentence is inappropriate under Rule 7(B) | Rasnick claims sentence is excessive given the offense’s nature. | Court adequately weighed aggravating and mitigating factors; sentence within range. | Sentence not inappropriate under Rule 7(B); within statutory range and supported by aggravating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1999) (due process concerns in pretrial identification procedures)
- Hubbell v. State, 754 N.E.2d 884 (Ind. 2001) (unduly suggestive show-up can be harmless if independent basis exists)
- Adkins v. State, 703 N.E.2d 182 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (totality of circumstances governs independent basis for in-court ID)
- Wethington v. State, 560 N.E.2d 496 (Ind. 1990) (egregious show-up error may be harmless when independent evidence strong)
- Heiman v. State, 511 N.E.2d 458 (Ind. 1987) (independent basis for in-court ID from initial observation)
- McHenry v. State, 820 N.E.2d 124 (Ind. 2005) (cannot reweigh evidence on sufficiency review)
- Cardwell v. State, 895 N.E.2d 1219 (Ind. 2008) (guiding principles on sentencing discretion under 7(B))
- Trainor v. State, 950 N.E.2d 352 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (deference to trial court’s sentencing decisions)
- Bryant v. State, 841 N.E.2d 1154 (Ind. 2006) (criminal history relevance to current offense)