LEGGS v. State
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 191
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Leggs was convicted after bench trial of two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, and one count each of Class C felony intimidation, Class C felony criminal recklessness, and Class A misdemeanor resisting law enforcement.
- The incident involved a February 24, 2010 assault where Leggs attacked Kimberly with a knife and restrained her, threatening to kill her.
- Kimberly attempted to escape; she and Leggs struggled, resulting in multiple stab wounds and attempted detainment until police intervened.
- The State charged additional counts and later amended to include habitual offender allegations, which the court partially merged and ultimately did not apply the habitual enhancement.
- On appeal, the court affirmed some convictions, reversed one Class B criminal confinement conviction under the continuing-crime doctrine, and remanded for resentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charging information sufficiency for intimidation | Leggs; argues lack of proof of intent to place in fear | Leggs; argues informaton deficient and fundamentally prejudicial | Waived but not fundamental; sufficient evidence of intimidation |
| Sufficiency of evidence for intimidation | State; proof showed intent to retaliate for prior act | Leggs; argues no prior lawful act and no specific intent | Evidence supports intimidation conviction |
| Double jeopardy for knife-enhancement across crimes | State; same knife used to enhance multiple offenses | Leggs; argues multiple enhancements based on same weapon violate double jeopardy | Not barred; repeated knife use justified multiple enhancements |
| Continuing-crime doctrine for two criminal confinements | Two confinements were separate incidents within short span | Continuing crime doctrine applies; counts should merge | Two confinements violate continuing-crime doctrine; reverse one conviction and remand |
Key Cases Cited
- Casey v. State, 676 N.E.2d 1069 (Ind.Ct.App.1997) (intent element requires prior lawful act and fear of retaliation)
- Miller v. State, 790 N.E.2d 437 (Ind.2003) (repeated use of a weapon may justify multiple enhancements)
- Hancock v. State, 768 N.E.2d 880 (Ind.2002) (single use of weapon not determinative in double jeopardy context)
- Pierce v. State, 761 N.E.2d 826 (Ind.2002) (bodily injury and other factors may support separate enhancements)
- Firestone v. State, 838 N.E.2d 468 (Ind.Ct.App.2005) (continuing-crime doctrine framework)
- Boyd v. State, 766 N.E.2d 396 (Ind.Ct.App.2002) (confinement ends when victim is free; separate confinement begins later)
- Donaldson v. State, 904 N.E.2d 294 (Ind.Ct.App.2009) (trial court to follow applicable law in bench rulings)