Seth A. Miller v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 365
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- On Jan. 9–10, 2012, Seth Miller and Ivy Smith burglarized a home, stole items (TV, laptop, purse), then took property from a parked car and later attempted to use stolen credit cards at multiple stores.
- All conduct occurred within a very short timeframe (under 24–48 hours).
- Miller was convicted by a jury of four counts, including corrupt business influence (Ind. Code § 35-45-6-2(3)), burglary, and two theft counts; overall aggregate sentence was 17 years plus probation.
- On appeal Miller challenged only the corrupt business influence conviction.
- The statute requires: (1) knowing or intentional participation, (2) in an "enterprise," and (3) through a "pattern of racketeering activity."
- Trial evidence showed a one-night partnership between Miller and Smith with no prior history or ongoing structure to suggest a continuing organization.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence established an "enterprise" under the corrupt business influence statute | State argued Miller participated in an activities-group (the two-person venture) sufficient to show an enterprise and pattern of racketeering activity | Miller argued the conduct was a single, short-lived episode between two people and lacked the continuity, structure, or ongoing organization required for an "enterprise" | Court held evidence failed to establish an enterprise; reversed corrupt business influence conviction and vacated its 8-year sentence |
Key Cases Cited
- Keesling v. Beegle, 880 N.E.2d 1202 (Ind. 2008) (Indiana RICO does not require directing the enterprise; simple participation suffices)
- Waldon v. State, 829 N.E.2d 168 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (discusses enterprise and pattern elements under Indiana law)
- United States v. Turkette, 452 U.S. 576 (U.S. 1981) (enterprise and pattern are distinct elements; enterprise requires an ongoing organization)
- Stephens, Inc. v. Geldermann, Inc., 962 F.2d 808 (8th Cir. 1992) (enterprise elements: common purpose, continuity of structure/personnel, ascertainable structure distinct from racketeering)
- United States v. Rogers, 89 F.3d 1326 (7th Cir. 1996) (enterprise must be more than the name for the crimes; hallmark is structure)
- United States v. Masters, 924 F.2d 1362 (7th Cir. 1991) (discusses distinction between enterprise and criminal agreement)