65 N.E.3d 585
Ind.2016Background
- Defendant Frank Hancock was charged in Indiana with, among other counts, two counts of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (SVF) based on prior Ohio second-degree burglary convictions.
- Indiana’s SVF statute treats a prior out-of-state conviction as qualifying only if the foreign statute’s elements are “substantially similar” to the listed Indiana serious violent felonies.
- Hancock’s Ohio convictions were under Ohio Rev. Code § 2911.12(A)(2) (second-degree burglary—trespass in an occupied structure to commit any criminal offense when another person is or likely to be present).
- Indiana’s comparable offense is level 4 burglary (I.C. § 35‑43‑2‑1(1)): break-and-enter a dwelling with intent to commit a felony or theft.
- The trial court concluded the Ohio and Indiana burglary statutes were not substantially similar and dismissed the SVF counts; the State appealed and the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding the statutory elements are substantially similar.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Hancock) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Are Ohio second-degree burglary elements "substantially similar" to Indiana level 4 burglary for SVF purposes? | Ohio elements sufficiently align with Indiana burglary (core characteristics—unlawful entry into an occupied structure/dwelling and intent to commit a crime) so the convictions qualify as SVF predicates. | Ohio statute is broader because it covers "any criminal offense" (including non-theft misdemeanors), so it is not substantially similar to Indiana’s requirement of "felony or theft." | Yes. The court held the elements share common core characteristics and are substantially similar; trial court erred in dismissing SVF counts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Suggs v. State, 51 N.E.3d 1190 (Ind. 2016) (statutory construction review de novo)
- Adams v. State, 960 N.E.2d 793 (Ind. 2012) (legislative intent guides statutory interpretation)
- Pierce v. State, 29 N.E.3d 1258 (Ind. 2015) (plain and ordinary meaning of statutory terms)
- Taylor v. United States, 495 U.S. 575 (1990) (modern statutory expansions of burglary definitions)
- United States v. Thomas, 367 F.3d 194 (4th Cir. 2004) (example of "substantial similarity" analysis focusing on whether violation of the out-of-state statute would necessarily violate the in-state statute)
- State v. Gardner, 889 N.E.2d 995 (Ohio 2008) (Ohio Supreme Court on the breadth of "any criminal offense" in Ohio burglary statute)