Peters v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1971
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Peters was stopped for speeding in a 60 mph zone and fled, leading to a foot chase and Peters crashing his car.
- During the pursuit, Peters had hands in his pockets and a cut hand; police later found four .9 mm bullets on Peters after arrest.
- A Glock .9 mm handgun was found on the church roof, with footprints and snow markings suggesting Peters fell near the discovery area.
- Peters lived in Columbus, Ohio; the gun had been reported stolen from a resident there, and Peters had .9 mm ammunition on his person.
- Peters was charged with multiple offenses, including the Class B felony unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF); he pled guilty to some counts and the jury found him guilty of the SVF charge.
- At sentencing, the court merged certain handgun offenses and imposed consecutive sentences totaling thirteen years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether use of post-arrest silence was fundamental error | Peters argues it violated his Fifth Amendment rights as substantive evidence. | Peters contends the State improperly used silence to imply guilt. | Not fundamental error; references were brief and harmless given strong other evidence. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for SVF possession | State argues gun linked to Peters via circumstantial evidence; Peters argues no direct touch/ fingerprints. | Peters contends lack of direct physical evidence undermines conviction. | Sufficient circumstantial evidence supported the Class B felony possession by SVF conviction. |
| Propriety of sentence | Sentence should reflect the gravity of SVF possession and Peters' history. | Sentence is excessive based on offense nature and his character. | Thirteen-year sentence not inappropriate; advisory ranges and Peters' criminal history justify it. |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (U.S. 1976) (post-arrest silence cannot be used to impeach)
- Fletcher v. Weir, 455 U.S. 603 (U.S. 1982) (post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence may be used for impeachment)
- Wainwright v. Greenfield, 474 U.S. 284 (U.S. 1986) (post-arrest, post-Miranda silence cannot be used substantively)
- Rowe v. State, 717 N.E.2d 1262 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (adopts test for post-Miranda silence in State's case-in-chief)
- Akard v. State, 924 N.E.2d 202 (Ind. Ct. App. 2010) (post-arrest, pre-Miranda silence improper in case-in-chief; brevity may be harmless)
- Bieghler v. State, 481 N.E.2d 78 (Ind. 1985) (test for harmlessness of post-arrest silence in trial)
- Hayes v. State, 876 N.E.2d 373 (Ind. Ct. App. 2007) (circumstantial evidence sufficiency standards)
- Tate v. State, 835 N.E.2d 499 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (circumstantial evidence supports possession convictions)