Thomas W. Oster, II v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. App. LEXIS 378
Ind. Ct. App.2013Background
- Wolfe rented studio space at Large Ink, a retail shop in Terre Haute, and heard a break-in around 7:00 p.m. on Jan. 18, 2012.
- Oster was apprehended near the alley behind Large Ink with fresh injuries and a pouch containing screwdrivers and pliers; a brick and a mobile phone were found near the door.
- The phone contained photographs of Oster, linking him to the burglary.
- Oster was charged with Class C felony burglary, Class A misdemeanor criminal mischief, and habitual offender status; the trial was bifurcated.
- Jury found Oster guilty of burglary and criminal mischief and the habitual offender finding; sentence for burglary was enhanced by 11 years.
- On appeal, Oster argued insufficient evidence for burglary and habitual offender, instructional error, and double jeopardy; State conceded mischief could not stand with burglary; appellate court affirmed in part, reversed in part, remanded with instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for burglary intent | Oster: no proof of felonious intent | Oster: same as plaintiff; lacking specific intent to steal | Sufficient evidence of intent to commit theft apart from breaking and entering. |
| Sufficiency of habitual offender proof | Oster: certified documents too varied to prove same person | Loveless identified Oster; corroborating records tied to Oster | Sufficient evidence to sustain habitual offender finding. |
| Fundamental error in jury instruction on mens rea | Oster: omission of theft intent instruction constitutes fundamental error | Mens rea instruction not essential when identity is sole issue | No fundamental error; trial focused on identity, not intent. |
| Double jeopardy between burglary and criminal mischief | Oster: convictions violate double jeopardy | State concedes mischief should vacate | Vacate conviction and sentence for criminal mischief; burglary upheld. |
Key Cases Cited
- Freshwater v. State, 853 N.E.2d 941 (Ind. 2006) (intent may be inferred from circumstances; circumstantial proof allowed in burglary)
- Gilliam v. State, 508 N.E.2d 1270 (Ind. 1987) (circumstantial evidence can prove burglary; infer intent from circumstances)
- Kondrup v. State, 250 Ind. 320, 235 N.E.2d 703 (Ind. 1968) (intent must be independently proven from breaking and entering)
- Justice v. State, 530 N.E.2d 295 (Ind. 1988) (no felonious intent shown; burglary reversed where no proof of intended theft)
- Faulkner v. State, 260 Ind. 82, 292 N.E.2d 594 (Ind. 1973) (explains separation of intent and breaking evidence)
- Hernandez v. State, 716 N.E.2d 948 (Ind. 1999) (identification sufficient to connect to prior felonies)
- Baker v. State, 968 N.E.2d 227 (Ind. 2012) (circumstantial evidence supports burglary intent)
- Swallows v. State, 674 N.E.2d 1317 (Ind. 1996) (fundamental error not shown when mens rea not at issue)
- Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32 (Ind. 1999) (double jeopardy considerations in habitual offender context)