Isiaka Habimana v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1603-CR-509
| Ind. Ct. App. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Victims Ndayizeye and Hatungimana lived in an Indianapolis apartment; Habimana (known as "Hashim") had previously sold them a TV and briefly stayed with them.
- On May 9, 2015, Habimana, Genesis Childress, and several others entered the apartment without permission, threatened occupants with a gun and a knife, and searched the unit.
- Habingimana struck Hatungimana multiple times, rendering her briefly unconscious; the group took a television, IDs, van key, and van registration.
- Habimana or an accomplice drove off in the victims’ van, which contained money intended for rent.
- Police located the van on August 18, 2015; Officer Hayth detained Habimana near an apartment after Sams (a passenger) identified the driver. Habimana’s ID and Hatungimana’s ID were found in the van.
- Habimana was tried and convicted by a jury of armed robbery (Level 3), robbery resulting in bodily injury (Level 3), and auto theft (Level 6); he appeals challenging sufficiency of the evidence and double jeopardy under the single larceny rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for armed robbery | State: evidence shows Habimana pointed a knife, participated in taking property, and left in the van. | Habimana: he only reclaimed his own property, no weapons or violence. | Affirmed — reasonable evidence supported convictions. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for robbery resulting in bodily injury | State: Habimana’s punching of Hatungimana and subsequent taking of property satisfy elements. | Habimana: denies committing robbery; disputes factual account. | Affirmed — physical injury and taking established the offense. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for auto theft | State: Habimana drove the victims’ van away and was found with victims’ ID in the van. | Habimana: Childress loaned the van to him with permission. | Affirmed — unauthorized control and intent to deprive supported conviction. |
| Double jeopardy — single larceny rule (armed robbery + auto theft) | State: the taking of keys/registration and the later driving off were separate acts, so distinct offenses. | Habimana: multiple convictions arise from the same larceny; double jeopardy violation. | Affirmed — single larceny rule did not apply; separate criminal acts established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. State, 50 N.E.3d 767 (Ind. 2016) (standard of review for sufficiency: consider probative evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Sutherlin v. State, 784 N.E.2d 971 (Ind. Ct. App. 2003) (appellant’s claim that reweighing evidence is improper on sufficiency review)
- Borum v. State, 951 N.E.2d 619 (Ind. Ct. App. 2011) (single-judgment principle when only one offense is committed)
- Lutes v. State, 401 N.E.2d 671 (Ind. 1980) (defendant bears burden to show double jeopardy violation)
- Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1994) (single larceny rule inapplicable where defendant committed a separate theft of a vehicle after stealing room property)