Lisa J. Kane v. State of Indiana, 2012 Ind. LEXIS 892

Kane was convicted of receiving stolen property (class D felony) with a habitual offender enhancement.
Evidence included Kane’s signature on pawn tickets and a thumbprint match on a pawn ticket.
Kane and Sam Rifner had a long-term relationship; they shared a home and financial difficulties.
The State argued accomplice liability could be inferred from joint conduct; Kane argued lack of proof of knowledge.
Final Instruction No. 12 stated each conspirator is responsible for confederates’ acts, without mentioning mens rea.
Indiana Supreme Court held instructional error on mens rea was not harmless and remanded for retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is Final Instruction No. 12 an incorrect statement of law?	Kane asserted lack of knowledge requirement in instruction.	State contended knowledge could be inferred from joint action.	Yes; instruction omits mens rea and is incorrect.
Was Kane's instructional objection preserved for appeal?	Objection raised during colloquy preserved under McDowell v. State.	State contends waiver applies for failure to raise specific grounds.	Not waived; preservation shown by trial court's consideration and modification.
Is the error harmless beyond a reasonable doubt?	Evidence shows knowledge inferred; sufficient to convict under proper instruction.	Circumstantial evidence alone could support knowledge.	Not harmless; reversal and retrial required.

Harrison v. State, 269 Ind. 677 (Ind. 1978) (supports requiring knowledge in accomplice liability instructions)
Small v. State, 531 N.E.2d 498 (Ind. 1988) (instructions must state mental state)
McDowell v. State, 885 N.E.2d 1260 (Ind. 2008) (preservation of instructional error via colloquy)
Rosales v. LaPorte Cmty. Sch. Corp., 963 N.E.2d 520 (Ind. 2012) (harms analysis; harmless error standard)
Dill v. State, 741 N.E.2d 1230 (Ind. 2001) (harmless error standard and prejudice considerations)