George Landy v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1704-CR-769
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 9, 2017Background
- In June 2016 Landy was driving a reported-stolen BMW that ran multiple stop signs, reached high speeds, and crashed into two parked vehicles and a yard; all vehicles suffered extensive damage.
- After the collision Landy exited the BMW and fled on foot; an officer pursued and tased him, resulting in his arrest.
- Landy was charged with eight counts: Count I (Level 6 resisting), Count II (Class A resisting), Counts III–V (Class A criminal mischief), Counts VI–VII (Class B leaving the scene), and Count VIII (Class B unauthorized entry).
- A jury convicted Landy on all counts; at sentencing the trial court vacated Count IV and produced an ambiguous disposition for Count VII. The court imposed an aggregate sentence of 910 days (730 DOC, 180 home detention).
- On appeal Landy argued double jeopardy violations (multiple convictions for the same conduct) and insufficiency of the evidence as to the dollar amount of damage for one criminal mischief count.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Landy) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two convictions for leaving the scene (Counts VI & VII) violate double jeopardy | State did not dispute identical evidence supported both counts and noted dismissal of one count | Convictions based on the same act of leaving the single accident violate double jeopardy | Vacated Count VII; convictions duplicative and must be vacated |
| Whether two resisting convictions (vehicle flight and on-foot flight) violate double jeopardy under continuing-crime doctrine | State argued separate acts justify separate convictions | Landy argued vehicle and on-foot flight were one continuous act of resisting | Vacated Count II (Class A resisting); vehicle and foot flight constitute one continuous act |
| Whether two criminal mischief convictions (damage to two different vehicles) violate double jeopardy | State: separate victims/property justify separate convictions | Landy: both damages stemmed from same collision, so continuing-crime applies | Affirmed both convictions (Counts III & V); different victims = distinct chargeable crimes |
| Whether evidence supported elevating Count V to Class A (damage ≥ $750) | Photographs of severe damage plus defendant’s testimony supported ≥ $750 | Landy argued State failed to prove $750 threshold | Affirmed Class A conviction; reasonable jury could infer damages ≥ $750 from photos and testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- Layman v. State, 42 N.E.3d 972 (Ind. 2015) (actual-evidence test for double jeopardy under Indiana Constitution)
- Spivey v. State, 761 N.E.2d 831 (Ind. 2002) (analysis of whether evidentiary facts overlap between offenses)
- Walker v. State, 932 N.E.2d 733 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (continuing-crime doctrine explained)
- Wood v. State, 999 N.E.2d 1054 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (multiple convictions for single act of leaving the scene constitute double jeopardy)
- Lewis v. State, 43 N.E.3d 689 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (vehicle and foot flight treated as same species of resisting)
- Arthur v. State, 824 N.E.2d 387 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (fleeing—on foot or in vehicle—proscribed conduct for resisting)
- Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578 (Ind. 2006) (different victims/properties can support multiple property-related convictions)
- Frazier v. State, 988 N.E.2d 1257 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (continuing-crime inapplicable where different victims are involved)
- Halsema v. State, 823 N.E.2d 668 (Ind. 2005) (jury may infer facts such as quantity or value from common sense and evidence presented)