Nathaniel Armstrong v. State of Indiana
2014 Ind. App. LEXIS 578
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Armstrong appeals the criminal gang enhancement and his aggregate sentence for murder, kidnapping, and attempted murder after a jury trial and a later bench trial on the enhancement.
- State charged Counts I–IV and VI and sought a criminal gang enhancement alleging Armstrong’s membership in the Luchiana Boyz.
- Jury convicted Counts I, II, III, IV, and VI; Counts VII and VIII were dismissed; the court later conducted a bench trial on the gang enhancement and imposed a substantial enhancement.
- Trial court admitted State’s Exhibit 1 (prior gang activity info and plea) over objection; detectives testified about the Luchiana Boyz and Armstrong’s association; the court found the enhancement proved and sentenced accordingly.
- Armstrong argues vagueness and disproportionality of the statute, evidentiary admission issues, sufficiency of evidence, and excessiveness of sentence, which this court affirms.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Vagueness of the gang enhancement statute | Armstrong argues ‘in affiliation with’ is vague | State contends ordinary understanding suffices | Not vague; language informs ordinary people. |
| Proportionality of the enhancement under Article I, §16 and the Eighth Amendment | Enhancement is disproportionate given the offense | Enhancement is graduated and proportional | Not unconstitutional as applied; proportional to offense. |
| Admission of Detective Schafer’s gang testimony | Testimony relied on non-expert hearsay | Testimony admissible as expert or harmless error | Harmless error given other admissible evidence. |
| Sufficiency of the evidence for the gang enhancement | Armstrong’s gang membership and direction/affiliation proven | Evidence insufficient to prove direction/affiliation | Sufficient probative evidence showed gang membership and direction/affiliation. |
| Sentence appropriateness under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) | Severity justified by brutal offenses and history | May be excessive for a young offender with mixed history | Not inappropriate in light of offense and offender. |
Key Cases Cited
- Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1998) (void-for-vagueness and notice sufficiency standards)
- Downey v. State, 476 N.E.2d 121 (Ind. 1985) (clarity between trivial and substantial acts)
- Moss-Dwyer v. State, 686 N.E.2d 109 (Ind. 1997) (presumption of constitutional validity; standard for review)
- Clark v. State, 561 N.E.2d 759 (Ind. 1990) (as-applied proportionality considerations for penalties)
- Solem v. Helm, 463 U.S. 277 (1983) (capital punishment proportionality framework cited in Eighth Amendment discussion)
- Knapp v. State, 9 N.E.3d 1274 (Ind. 2014) (non-capital proportionality analysis; rarity of successful challenges)