Seth Curtis v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 596
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On July 8, 2011, Curtis entered a CVS, threatened a customer and pharmacy staff with a handgun, and demanded Opana pills from the pharmacist and car keys from the pharmacy technician.
- The pharmacist opened a safe and gave Curtis Opana (controlled substance); the technician gave him her car keys; Curtis left with the pills and keys and later stole the technician’s vehicle from the CVS parking lot.
- Police recovered a Powerade bottle containing blue liquid from a trash can just outside the CVS; DNA testing matched Curtis to DNA on that bottle to a statistical probability of 1 in 330 billion.
- Curtis was charged with two counts of Class B felony armed robbery (separate counts for the Opana and the car keys), Class C felony intimidation, and Class D felony auto theft; a jury convicted him on all counts.
- The trial court sentenced Curtis (20 years on each armed robbery count, concurrent to each other but consecutive to other counts; 7 years intimidation; 2.5 years auto theft); Curtis appealed raising insufficiency of evidence and single-larceny challenges.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Curtis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Curtis was the perpetrator | DNA on bottle recovered outside CVS plus surveillance and circumstantial facts link bottle to perpetrator and bottle to Curtis | Bottle might not be the same bottle seen with perpetrator before entry; evidence fails to prove Curtis was the actor | Evidence sufficient: circumstantial link (video, bottle in trash, condition/placement of bottle) plus DNA identification supports conviction; appellate court will not reweigh evidence |
| Single larceny: two armed robbery convictions (Opana from pharmacist and keys from technician) | The takings were distinct: one was property of the business (pharmacy) and the other was personal property of a separate individual | Both takings occurred seconds apart in same place and thus constitute a single larceny/unitary transaction | No violation: takings were of separate victims/properties (business property vs. individual’s property); two robbery convictions allowed |
| Single larceny: armed robbery (car keys) and auto theft (vehicle taken from parking lot) | The armed robbery of keys and subsequent taking of the vehicle were separate acts and are different statutory offenses | Both acts were essentially one continuous taking—keys and immediately the vehicle—so conviction/sentence for both violates single larceny | No violation: parking lot is not part of the interior robbery; auto theft is a distinct statutory offense from robbery; convictions and sentences both allowed |
Key Cases Cited
- Drane v. State, 867 N.E.2d 144 (Ind. 2007) (standards for sufficiency review; appellate court defers to factfinder)
- Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012) (assessing reasonable inferences from evidence)
- Stewart v. State, 768 N.E.2d 433 (Ind. 2002) (appellate courts do not reweigh evidence or judge witness credibility)
- Ferguson v. State, 405 N.E.2d 902 (Ind. 1980) (single larceny does not bar separate robberies of distinct individuals)
- McKinney v. State, 400 N.E.2d 1378 (Ind. 1980) (separate robbery of business and of individual are distinct takings)
- Stout v. State, 479 N.E.2d 563 (Ind. 1985) (taking from dwelling and attached garage may constitute single taking)
- Bivins v. State, 642 N.E.2d 928 (Ind. 1994) (parking lot not part of interior space for single taking analysis)
- Potter v. State, 451 N.E.2d 1080 (Ind. 1983) (theft of automobile can be additional theft separate from robbery)
- Jenkins v. State, 695 N.E.2d 158 (Ind. Ct. App. 1998) (double jeopardy discussion; distinguished because of differing factual overlap)
- J.R. v. State, 982 N.E.2d 1037 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013) (auto theft and theft/robbery are distinct statutory offenses; Stout distinguished)