Reeves v. State
2011 Ind. App. LEXIS 1736
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Reeves, owner of Alanar, was convicted on nine counts of Class C felony securities fraud after a scheme involving church bonds and misdirected proceeds.
- Alanar and related entities used paying agents and multiple churches; improper transfers created a complex intercompany flow of funds.
- Evidence showed transactions within five-year statute window, but the State sought to admit earlier transactions as part of a common scheme.
- Forensic review revealed hundreds of thousands of transactions and substantial misappropriations across several bond issues.
- The trial court admitted earlier transactions; Reeves was sentenced to consecutive six-year terms for each conviction, with enhanced aggravating factors.
- Reeves appeals alleging improper admission of evidence and sentencing errors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prior transactions were properly admitted under 404(b). | State argues prior acts show common plan; tolling or intent. | Reeves contends earlier acts are inadmissible as time-barred. | Admissible under common scheme/plan despite timing; supports intent and context. |
| Whether consecutive sentences were permissible. | State contends multiple offenses justify consecutive terms. | Reeves argues securities fraud not a violence crime and offenses constitute one episode. | Consecutive sentences affirmed; offenses not a single episode; proper under law. |
| Whether Reeves's aggregate sentence is appropriate. | State emphasizes egregious scheme and large victim losses. | Reeves claims excessive punishment. | Aggregate 54-year sentence upheld as appropriate given victims and exploitation. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reeves v. State, 938 N.E.2d 10 (Ind.Ct.App.2010) (concerning concealment and tolling under statute of limitations (cited as to admissibility grounds))
- Miller v. State, 593 N.E.2d 1247 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (uncharged criminal activity admissible to complete the story under 404(b))
- Clarkson v. State, 486 N.E.2d 501 (Ind.1985) (common scheme or plan justification for 404(b) evidence)
- Moore v. State, 653 N.E.2d 1010 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (common scheme/plan for 404(b) evidence (modus operandi or preconceived plan))
- Wickizer v. State, 626 N.E.2d 795 (Ind.1993) (intent exception to 404(b) requires affirmative placement of intent at issue)
- Tedlock v. State, 656 N.E.2d 273 (Ind.Ct.App.1995) (episode of criminal conduct doctrine—separate offenses not one episode when full account possible)