John O. Study v. State of Indiana
24 N.E.3d 947
| Ind. | 2015Background
- John O. Study was ultimately tried for multiple bank robberies spanning March 21, 2006 to September 19, 2007; Count XI charged a March 21, 2006 Key Bank robbery (Class B felony).
- Initial charges related to the 2007 robberies were filed in October 2007; Study was arrested in Florida on November 21, 2007 and returned to Indiana years later; additional charges (including Count XI) were filed in August 2012.
- Study moved to dismiss Count XI as barred by the five-year statute of limitations; the trial court initially granted dismissal but allowed an amended information alleging concealment to toll the limitations period.
- The jury convicted Study on most counts; Count XI carried a 15-year consecutive sentence and $10,000 fine, contributing to a total executed sentence later reduced when Count XI was vacated.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions, holding the concealment-tolling provision applied; Study petitioned and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to decide the proper scope of the concealment exception.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Study) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Indiana Code § 35-41-4-2(h)(2) is tolled by a defendant’s acts that merely conceal identity or other evidence of guilt | Tolling covers concealment of any evidence of the offense (e.g., mask, getaway car, clothes, weapon, stolen items), so limitations tolled until apprehension | Tolling requires a positive act calculated to conceal that a crime occurred; Study’s acts did not hide the fact that a robbery happened | Court held tolling requires a positive act calculated to conceal the fact that an offense occurred; Count XI was time-barred and must be dismissed |
| Whether the amended information alleging concealment adequately cured the statute-of-limitations defect | Allegations of concealment in the amended information justified tolling and cured the defect | Amended allegations did not allege the kind of positive acts necessary to toll the statute | Trial court erred to the extent it denied dismissal: amended pleading did not save Count XI because alleged acts did not constitute concealment of the crime itself |
| Proper construction of “conceals evidence of the offense” after statutory language change in 1976 | The new wording broadens tolling to any evidence concealment, including concealment of guilt or identity | Historical precedent construes concealment to mean concealment of the fact a crime occurred; change in wording did not abrogate that line of cases | Court reaffirmed longstanding construction: statute requires affirmative acts calculated to prevent discovery that an offense was committed |
| Effect on sentence after dismissal of Count XI | N/A | N/A | Count XI vacated and dismissed; aggregate sentence reduced by 15 years and $10,000; remaining convictions and aggregate sentence (53.5 years, $40,000) affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (discusses concealment tolling and when tolling ends)
- Crider v. State, 531 N.E.2d 1151 (Ind. 1988) (earlier application of concealment-tolling provision)
- Chrzan v. State, 693 N.E.2d 566 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (tolling applied where defendant took positive acts to conceal that a crime had occurred)
- Kifer v. State, 740 N.E.2d 586 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000) (construing concealment to require a positive act to prevent discovery of the offense)
- Umfleet v. State, 556 N.E.2d 339 (Ind. Ct. App. 1990) (victim ignorance or defendant silence not sufficient to toll limitations)
- State v. Palmer, 810 P.2d 734 (Kan. 1991) (construing concealment as requiring affirmative acts to hide the existence of the offense)