Gary Sistrunk v. State of Indiana
11 N.E.3d 925
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Feb. 5, 2012, Gary Sistrunk allegedly robbed a Marion County gas station at gunpoint; clerk Christina Busch handed over register cash and two safe drops and later identified Sistrunk from a photo array.
- Sistrunk was charged with robbery and criminal confinement (both charged as Class B felonies based on being armed).
- At bench trial the court relied on Busch’s identification together with surveillance video to find Sistrunk guilty of both offenses and sentenced him to concurrent six-year terms (to run consecutive to another cause).
- Defense had sought public funding for an expert on eyewitness identification; the Marion County Public Defender opposed funding and the trial court denied the request.
- On appeal Sistrunk argued (1) the robbery and confinement convictions violate Indiana double jeopardy under the actual-evidence test, and (2) the trial court abused discretion by denying public funds for an identification expert.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed guilt, held the confinement conviction was a separate transgression but concluded the single use/pointing of the gun could not legally enhance both convictions to Class B; remanded to reduce confinement to Class D and for resentencing on that count, and affirmed denial of expert funding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Double jeopardy (actual evidence test) — robbery vs. criminal confinement | Sistrunk: confinement (order to sit) was no more than incidental to robbery; reasonable possibility the same evidence convicted both offenses | State: confinement (ordering clerk to sit after taking money and telling her not to press the button) exceeded what was necessary to commit the robbery and was charged to require independent interference with liberty | Court: convictions do not violate double jeopardy — confinement here was a separate transgression from the robbery |
| Multiple enhancements based on single use of weapon | Sistrunk: single pointing of gun should not enhance both robbery and confinement to Class B | State: enhancement for being armed applies to each offense committed while armed; repeated use rule permits multiple enhancements | Court: under Miller the record shows the gun was pointed once and not repeatedly used; same behavior improperly enhanced both convictions — remand to reduce confinement to Class D and resentence accordingly |
| Denial of public funds for eyewitness identification expert | Sistrunk: expert was necessary to challenge in-court ID and the only contested issue was identity; met Scott factors and cost was reasonable | State: expert not necessary where counsel can cross-examine, video exists, proposed expert’s qualifications unclear, and defendant failed to show necessity or reasonable fee | Court: trial court did not abuse discretion — defendant failed to show expert was necessary to assure adequate defense; denial affirmed |
| Procedure re: MCPD involvement in funding decision | Sistrunk: MCPD taking adversarial stance against indigent’s request and court reliance on MCPD was unfair | State: issue waived and record shows court evaluated request; MCPD input not dispositive | Court: issue waived; in any event no prejudice shown; court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (sets statutory-elements and actual-evidence tests for double jeopardy)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (explains applying actual-evidence test from fact-finder’s perspective)
- Hopkins v. State, 759 N.E.2d 633 (Ind. 2001) (confinement that exceeds what is necessary to rob may be separate offense)
- Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind. 2003) (addresses when repeated use of a weapon allows multiple enhancements vs. single use that should not be multiply enhanced)
- Scott v. State, 593 N.E.2d 198 (Ind. 1992) (factors for appointing expert services at public expense)
- Reed v. State, 687 N.E.2d 209 (Ind. Ct. App. 1997) (discusses eyewitness-identification expert testimony and public-funding burden)
- Cook v. State, 734 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 2000) (upholds exclusion of identification expert where eyewitnesses were unequivocal)
- Farris v. State, 818 N.E.2d 63 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004) (permits excluding identification expert when careful cross-examination and corroborating evidence make expert unnecessary)