Noah Pittman v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 700
Ind. Ct. App.2015Background
- Noah Pittman and Natasha Small were former partners with a child together; after a breakup Pittman made repeated phone calls to Small on March 5, 2014, threatened to kill her, and showed up at a clinic where she was with a handgun taken from his mother’s home.
- Police arrived, found the handgun (no round in chamber) and a loaded magazine in Pittman’s backpack; Pittman told an officer he was there "to scare his girlfriend."
- The State charged Pittman with Count I: attempted stalking (class B felony, based on being armed) and Count II: carrying a handgun without a license (class A misdemeanor).
- Pittman moved to dismiss Count I arguing stalking’s result element (actual causing of fear) precludes an attempt prosecution and raised vagueness and constitutional challenges to the attempt and weapons statutes at various points on appeal.
- A jury convicted Pittman on both counts; the court sentenced him to an aggregate six-year term (four years executed in community corrections, two years suspended to probation).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Pittman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether trial court erred denying motion to dismiss attempted-stalking charge | Attempt statute applies; attempt requires substantial step and requisite culpability, not proof of every completed-offense element | Stalking requires a success/result element (victim actually feels terrorized), so it cannot be an attempt crime; allowing attempt prosecutions renders stalking’s language absurd | Denied. Court follows King: general attempt statute applies; attempt need not prove completed-result element, only intent + substantial step |
| Whether general attempt statute is void for vagueness as applied | Statute gives adequate notice; vagueness waived by failure to raise pretrial; even on merits statute is not vague under facts presented | Charging attempted stalking criminalizes trivial conduct; line between harmless conduct and attempted stalking is unclear | Waived for failure to move to dismiss on constitutional grounds; on merits, statute not void for vagueness given intent + substantial-step requirement and facts here (threats, armed approach) |
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted stalking conviction | Evidence (threats, repeated calls, armed arrival, admission to "scare" victim) supports intent and substantial step | Cannot intend a victim’s internal state; repeated calls could be legitimate communication; no substantial step occurred | Affirmed. Evidence sufficient for jury to find intent to commit stalking and substantial step toward it |
| Whether six-year minimum sentence for attempted stalking (class B) violates Article I, §16 (proportionality) | Sentence falls within legislatively authorized range and is not disproportionate given gravity of conduct | Penalty is excessive for conduct that could be ordinary domestic dispute; six years is shocking | Rejected. Sentence is within statutory range and not so out of proportion as to violate Article I, §16 |
| Whether carrying handgun without a license statute is facially unconstitutional | Burden-shifting (defendant proves license or exemption) is constitutional; statute previously upheld | Statute places burden on defendant to prove license/exemption and thus infringes rights; also asserted Second Amendment/Article I, §32 concerns | Rejected. Prior precedent controls: proving license is an exception/defense and burden on defendant is constitutional; second-amendment arguments waived for lack of developed argument |
Key Cases Cited
- King v. State, 921 N.E.2d 1288 (Ind. 2010) (attempt statute applies when defendant takes substantial step with requisite intent even if completed offense’s result element is not met)
- Zickefoose v. State, 388 N.E.2d 507 (Ind. 1979) (discussing focus on substantial step under the attempt statute)
- Johnson v. State, 648 N.E.2d 666 (Ind. Ct. App. 1995) (stalking statutes provide adequate standards and are not void for vagueness)
- Harris v. State, 716 N.E.2d 406 (Ind. 1999) (once the State shows carrying a handgun, burden shifts to defendant to prove license or exemption)
- Klein v. State, 698 N.E.2d 296 (Ind. 1998) (vagueness standard and due-process notice requirement for criminal statutes)
- Brown v. State, 868 N.E.2d 464 (Ind. 2007) (vagueness analysis and requirement that statutes give sufficiently definite warning)