Pardip Singh v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 590
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Singh married P.K. (a recent immigrant with limited English and no local support) and lived with her; after moving to the U.S. she was isolated and abused.
- From May 7–11, 2012, Singh transported P.K. in the cab of his semi-truck, kept her confined with threats, limited her food, and followed her to the bathroom.
- On May 12, 2012, in Indianapolis, Singh beat P.K., told others he had a woman from India and solicited $500 for one night, brought a man to the apartment, dragged and beat P.K. when she refused, and threatened to kill her.
- Police arrived after P.K. locked Singh out; she had visible injuries and reported he would not let her go; Singh was arrested.
- Charged with multiple offenses; convicted by a jury of attempted promotion of human trafficking (Class B), criminal confinement (Class C), and intimidation (Class D); some misdemeanor convictions later vacated; aggregate executed sentence = 15 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for attempted promotion of human trafficking | State: evidence (solicitations from apartment, offering P.K. for money, bringing a man, beating her when she refused) shows harboring and a substantial step toward forcing prostitution | Singh: no proof he intended to force P.K. into commercial sex during the transport to Indiana; no prior scheme before May 12 | Affirmed — evidence sufficient that Singh harbored P.K. and took substantial steps to force prostitution/sexual conduct on May 12 |
| Double jeopardy between attempted promotion of human trafficking and criminal confinement | State: prosecutions rely on distinct factual episodes and elements — confinement in truck (May 7–11) vs. harboring/solicitations in apartment (May 12) | Singh: same evidentiary facts (transport and threats) could have been used for both convictions, violating actual-evidence test | Affirmed — no reasonable possibility jury used identical facts for both convictions; offenses distinct under actual-evidence test |
| Sentencing: use of prior arrests and prior conviction as aggravators | State: trial court may consider arrests/convictions to assess defendant’s character and risk of reoffense | Singh: trial court erred by relying on prior arrests without showing pattern; overemphasized a 2004 assault conviction | Affirmed — court permissibly considered prior arrests/conviction and pretrial-release violation as aggravating; no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Bailey v. State, 907 N.E.2d 1003 (Ind. 2009) (standard for sufficiency review)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (actual-evidence double jeopardy test)
- Lee v. State, 892 N.E.2d 1231 (Ind. 2008) (application of actual-evidence test and jury-perspective analysis)
- Sloan v. State, 947 N.E.2d 917 (Ind. 2011) (de novo review of legal double jeopardy conclusions)
- Anglemyer v. State, 868 N.E.2d 482 (Ind. 2007) (standards for reviewing sentencing discretionary decisions)
- Monegan v. State, 756 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. 2001) (discussion of using prior arrests at sentencing)
- McNew v. State, 391 N.E.2d 607 (Ind. 1979) (trial court’s ability to examine defendant’s background at sentencing)
- Mitchell v. State, 844 N.E.2d 88 (Ind. 2006) (permissible consideration of prior convictions in sentencing)