Kenyatta Erkins v. State of Indiana
13 N.E.3d 400
Ind.2014Background
- Erkins and co-defendant Ojile were surveilled by police (wiretap, GPS) after casino visits; Ojile observed S.M. winning large sums and reported to Erkins.
- Phone calls showed agreement and intent to rob S.M., including statements like “we should go lay on him” and willingness to “go all the way.”
- The next day police arrested the men and seized dark clothing, gloves, duct tape, a backpack with a .40 Glock, ammunition, and a BB gun.
- State charged both with class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury and attempt; attempt charges were dismissed at trial and the information was amended to show Ojile — not Erkins — performed the overt act.
- Jury convicted; Erkins appealed arguing (1) the mid-trial amendment substantively prejudiced him, and (2) insufficient evidence because no actual serious bodily injury occurred to S.M.
- Supreme Court affirmed: amendment was one of form; conspiracy need not produce the result, only intent/agreement and overt act to conspire to cause serious bodily injury.
Issues
| Issue | Erkins' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substituting the identity of the conspirator who committed the overt act (mid-trial) was an impermissible substantive amendment | Amendment changed a substantive allegation central to Erkins' defense and prejudiced trial preparation | Identity of the actor who performed the overt act is not an essential element; amendment was form not substance and did not prejudice defense | Amendment was one of form; trial court did not err in permitting it |
| Whether actual serious bodily injury must occur to sustain a conviction for class A felony conspiracy to commit robbery resulting in serious bodily injury | "Results in" requires that serious bodily injury actually occur; without injury the enhancement cannot stand | Conspiracy is a crime of intent; State need only prove agreement and intent to commit the underlying felony and the intent/agreement to cause the enhanced result — the result need not actually occur | State need not prove actual serious bodily injury occurred; it must prove intent/agreement to cause serious bodily injury and an overt act in furtherance |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show intent/agreement to commit robbery and to cause serious bodily injury | Insufficient because S.M. was not physically harmed | Surveillance, recorded calls expressing intent to "lay on" and "go all the way," overt acts (surveillance, weapons and tools) show intent/agreement and overt acts | Evidence sufficient to permit a reasonable factfinder to find intent/agreement to rob and to seriously injure, and overt acts in furtherance |
| Whether conspiracy’s statutory classification requires proof of the enhanced result as an element | Enhanced classification requires proof of the resulting harm (Erkins) | Conspiracy to an enhanced offense requires proof that defendants agreed/intended the enhanced result, not that the result occurred | Court treats enhanced conspiracy as requiring proof of intent/agreement to the enhanced result; actual occurrence not required |
Key Cases Cited
- Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007) (amendment to information: form vs. substance analysis)
- State v. Moss-Dwyer, 686 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 1997) (standard of review for questions of law)
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (sufficiency review—probative evidence and reasonable inferences)
- Mediate v. State, 498 N.E.2d 391 (Ind. 1986) (reasonable inference of guilt must be more than conjecture)
- Survance v. State, 465 N.E.2d 1076 (Ind. 1984) (agreement and intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence and overt acts)
- Payne v. State, 484 N.E.2d 16 (Ind. 1985) (policy behind statutory enhancements for robbery resulting in bodily injury)
- Phares v. State, 506 N.E.2d 65 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (discussion of enhancement and conspiracy classification)
- Smith v. State, 549 N.E.2d 1036 (Ind. 1990) (conspiracy conviction upheld where serious bodily injury occurred as natural and probable consequence)
- Young v. State, 725 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 2000) (sufficiency to support class A robbery where record supported serious bodily injury)
- Hawkins v. State, 514 N.E.2d 1255 (Ind. 1987) (evidentiary sufficiency for ‘serious bodily injury’ enhancement)
- Porter v. State, 715 N.E.2d 868 (Ind. 1999) (elements required to prove conspiracy)
- McIntyre v. State, 717 N.E.2d 114 (Ind. 1999) (amendment is form if defenses/evidence apply equally after amendment)