Justin Craig v. State of Indiana (mem. dec.)
49A02-1611-CR-2488
| Ind. Ct. App. | Jul 28, 2017Background
- On March 2, 2016 Justin Craig climbed to Keana Jackson’s balcony and entered her apartment through the open balcony door; after an initial interaction he chased a guest out the front door.
- Jackson closed and locked the front door; Craig then returned, broke through the front door, re-entered the apartment, grabbed Jackson’s iPhone and threw it, cracking the glass screen protector.
- Police arrived; Craig admitted entering through the balcony and breaking the front door. Jackson reported headbutt and phone damage, but the court later acquitted Craig of battery.
- Charging: two counts of Level 6 residential entry (balcony and front-door entries), one count of Level 6 battery, and two counts of Class B criminal mischief (damage to front door and to the phone).
- Bench trial: convicted on both residential-entry counts and both criminal-mischief counts; acquitted on battery. Sentence imposed; Craig appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Craig) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether two entries constitute a single continuous crime under the continuous-crime doctrine | Entries were separate offenses; conviction on both appropriate | Both entries were part of one continuous transaction in short time with single purpose | Affirmed: entries through balcony and front door were separate offenses (not a single continuous crime) |
| Whether entry through the front door and criminal mischief for damaging that same door violate the actual-evidence double-jeopardy test | The State concedes these convictions overlap and violate double jeopardy | Convictions violate double jeopardy because same evidentiary facts proved both offenses | Remanded to vacate conviction/sentence for criminal mischief as to the front door |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support criminal mischief conviction for damage to Jackson’s iPhone | The State: the cracked glass screen protector was part of the phone and constituted damage to the phone | Craig: only the screen protector (not the phone) was cracked, so State failed to prove damage to the phone itself | Affirmed: sufficient evidence — the attached glass screen protector constituted part of the phone and its cracking established criminal mischief |
Key Cases Cited
- Hines v. State, 30 N.E.3d 1216 (Ind. 2015) (explaining scope of continuous-crime doctrine)
- Riehle v. State, 823 N.E.2d 287 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (continuous-crime doctrine — when separate acts may be compressed into single transaction)
- Garrett v. State, 992 N.E.2d 710 (Ind. 2013) (actual-evidence test for double-jeopardy analysis)
- Bailey v. State, 979 N.E.2d 133 (Ind. 2012) (standard for sufficiency-of-evidence review)