973 N.E.2d 110
Ind. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Lewis was convicted of two counts of felony murder and two related robberies after a 1999 drug-house robbery and killings.
- Hale, Mays, Lewis and Lawson planned to visit the drug house to obtain drugs and money, with Lewis aware of the plan to rob Wilson and Rogers.
- Hale used a nine-millimeter firearm; Lewis carried a .38 revolver and assisted in the crime.
- Rogers and Wilson were killed during the burglary; Mays shot Rogers, Hale shot Wilson.
- Lawson observed the group fleeing, and the defendants later shared drugs and money; Lewis’s revolver was buried and later recovered.
- On February 25, 2011, Lewis was charged with four counts and convicted on all counts; the court sentenced consecutive terms totaling 130 years.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the felony murder convictions? | Lewis argues insufficient proof of intent and accomplice liability. | State contends conduct and involvement show intent and accomplice liability; killings are natural consequences of robbery. | Yes, sufficient evidence supports accomplice liability and the murders. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williams v. State, 706 N.E.2d 149 (Ind. 1999) (robbery-turned-murder accomplice liability rule)
- Wise v. State, 719 N.E.2d 1192 (Ind. 1999) (no distinction between principal and accomplice in murder liability)
- Wieland v. State, 736 N.E.2d 1198 (Ind. 2000) (factors for aiding another in crime consider presence, companionship, failure to oppose, course of conduct)
- Coleman v. State, 546 N.E.2d 827 (Ind. 1989) (intent may be inferred from conduct and circumstantial evidence)
- Whatley v. State, 908 N.E.2d 276 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (mens rea often proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Gibson v. State, 515 N.E.2d 492 (Ind. 1987) (affirming circumstantial proof of intent)
- Kondrup v. State, 250 Ind. 320, 235 N.E.2d 703 (1968) (intent to commit felony inferred from circumstances)
- Jones v. State, 783 N.E.2d 1132 (Ind. 2003) (standard for sufficiency review; do not reweigh evidence)
- Hampton v. State, 961 N.E.2d 480 (Ind. 2012) (mens rea evaluation in criminal cases)