J.R. v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 7
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- J.R. was adjudicated delinquent for burglary, theft, auto theft, and resisting law enforcement arising from an August 5, 2011 burglary of Donald Overby's Indianapolis residence.
- Stolen items included a handgun, a television, an iPod, and Overby's 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche equipped with OnStar.
- Police located the Avalanche and observed two individuals enter and drive away; J.R. fled on foot but was captured; an iPod was recovered and linked to Overby.
- The State petitioned for delinquency on four counts corresponding to burglary (Class B felony adult equivalent), theft (Class D), auto theft (Class D under different statute), and resisting law enforcement (Class A misdemeanor).
- The juvenile court found true on all counts and ordered probation with a suspended commitment to the Department of Correction; J.R. appealed, challenging the theft and auto theft findings under the single larceny rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether theft and auto theft convictions violate the single larceny rule. | J.R. argues only one larceny occurred, so both findings violate the rule. | Theft and auto theft are separate offenses under different statutes, so no single larceny violation. | Theft and auto theft are distinct offenses; true findings do not violate the single larceny rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Stout v. State, 479 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1985) (single larceny rule applies when identical theft counts; auto theft statute created later here distinguishes offenses)
- Raines v. State, 514 N.E.2d 298 (Ind. 1987) (single-acting single offense analysis for larceny)
- Elmore v. State, 382 N.E.2d 893 (Ind. 1978) (identity of offenses focus, not source)
- Taylor v. State, 879 N.E.2d 1198 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (cites single larceny rule rationale)
- H.M. v. State, 892 N.E.2d 679 (Ind. Ct. App. 2008) (protects juvenile adjudications from multiple convictions for single act)