Michael Pugh v. State of Indiana
52 N.E.3d 955
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Night of Oct. 28–29, 2013: Pugh and five other males, after heavy drug and alcohol use, entered an occupied home via an unlocked garage door and conducted a violent, hours-long invasion aimed at theft.
- During the invasion the wife was shot twice and sexually assaulted; the adult daughter was repeatedly sexually assaulted by multiple perpetrators; vehicles and property were taken and some victims were forced to withdraw cash at ATMs.
- Police linked Alexander Dupree to the scene by a fingerprint and traced frequent cell phone contacts between Dupree and a number linked to Pugh; victims described a male with dreadlocks matching Pugh’s photo.
- Officers surveilled Pugh, observed him leave an apartment and sit in a Thunderbird; when an officer approached, Pugh reached toward the floorboard, was detained, and a handgun was found under the seat. Pugh admitted ownership; blood on the gun matched the wife.
- Pugh was charged with numerous felonies; after trial the jury convicted him of multiple counts including two rape convictions (as an accomplice), attempted criminal deviate conduct, carjackings, robberies, and burglary. The court denied his suppression motion and his mistrial request; Pugh received an aggregate 248-year sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pugh) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of gun, statement, and test results from detention | Officers had reasonable suspicion and lawfully detained Pugh based on Dupree link, cell records, surveillance, dreadlocks description, and observed movement in car | Stop was an unlawful seizure lacking reasonable suspicion, so evidence obtained should be suppressed | Denial of suppression affirmed: detention and seizure were reasonable under both Fourth Amendment and Indiana Constitution analyses |
| Sufficiency of evidence for accomplice liability (rapes, attempted deviate conduct, carjackings) | Evidence showed Pugh aided/participated: transported group, led entry, wore gloves, guarded husband, provided handgun, shared in post-crime handling/sale of stolen goods — sexual assaults and carjackings were natural/probable consequences | Pugh argued lack of direct participation and alleged disbelief about rapes; challenged that State failed to prove he knowingly aided those specific sexual offenses and carjackings | Convictions affirmed: circumstantial evidence and accomplice doctrine supported reasonable inference Pugh knowingly associated with and aided the criminal enterprise |
| Single larceny rule re: three robbery convictions | Robberies were distinct—victims’ property was taken separately from husband, wife, and daughter over time and included separate trips to ATMs | Pugh argued all takings were part of one continuous larceny/one intent so multiple robbery convictions violate single larceny rule | No violation: robberies involved separate victims, separate transactions, and some takings occurred at different times/places, so multiple convictions stand |
| Continuing crime doctrine for two rape convictions | Rapes were discrete acts at separate times/places (bathroom vs den; multiple sequential rapes by different perpetrators) so multiple rape charges were permissible | Pugh argued successive rapes were part of a single continuous offense and should merge | Doctrine inapplicable; each rape involved separate acts, times, and perpetrators — convictions may stand |
| Denial of mistrial after juror inquiry about defendant drawing | State: jurors’ observation of defendant’s courtroom behavior does not require mistrial absent evidence of prejudice; trial court made threshold assessment and instructions sufficed | Pugh: drawings and juror comments indicated bias and required individual voir dire or removal and mistrial | Denial affirmed: trial court did threshold assessment, found no substantial risk of prejudice, and did not abuse discretion in denying mistrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Nicholson v. State, 963 N.E.2d 1096 (Ind. 2012) (trial court has wide discretion on admissibility of evidence)
- Reinhart v. State, 930 N.E.2d 42 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (appellate review defers to trial court’s factual findings on searches)
- Rutledge v. State, 28 N.E.3d 281 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015) (totality-of-circumstances test for reasonable suspicion)
- Finger v. State, 799 N.E.2d 528 (Ind. 2003) (innocent facts in combination can create reasonable suspicion)
- Litchfield v. State, 824 N.E.2d 356 (Ind. 2005) (Indiana Const. art. I, § 11 requires totality-of-circumstances reasonableness balancing)
- Gerschoffer v. State, 763 N.E.2d 960 (Ind. 2002) (liberal construction of article I, § 11 to protect privacy)
- Griffin v. State, 16 N.E.3d 997 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014) (elements of accomplice liability; natural and probable consequences doctrine)
- Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1994) (single larceny rule limited where takings are separate in time/place)
- Firestone v. State, 838 N.E.2d 468 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (distinct sexual acts can constitute separate offenses)
- Caruthers v. State, 926 N.E.2d 1016 (Ind. 2010) (trial court’s role in assessing juror exposure and prejudice)