Opinion ID: 853754
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Statutory Elements Test: Could Separate Offenses Be Established?

Text: The objective of this test is to determine whether the essential elements of separate statutory crimes charged could be established hypothetically. In this test, the charged offenses are identified [38] by comparing the essential statutory elements of one charged offense with the essential statutory elements of the other charged offense. Inspecting the relevant statutes and the charging instrument to identify those elements which must be established to convict under the statute, [39] this review considers the essential statutory elements to determine the identity of the offense charged, but does not evaluate the manner or means by which the offenses are alleged to have been committed, unless the manner or means comprise an essential element. Once the essential elements of each charged offense have been identified, [40] the reviewing court must determine whether the elements of one of the challenged offenses could, hypothetically, be established by evidence that does not also establish the essential elements of the other charged offense. [41] In this case, defendant Richardson contends that his convictions for robbery and class A misdemeanor battery violate double jeopardy. Robbery as a class C felony is defined as follows: A person who knowingly or intentionally takes property from another person or from the presence of another person: (1) by using or threatening the use of force on any person; or (2) by putting any person in fear; commits robbery, a class C felony. IND.CODE § 35-42-5-1 (1993). The defendant was charged as follows: Robert M. Richardson II ... on or about the 31st day of August, 1996 ... did then and there knowingly or intentionally take property from another person, to-wit: a wallet containing $700 belonging to Jeffrey W. Koenig by using or threatening the use of force. Record at 4. Under the statutory elements test, we focus on the essential elements comprising the charged offense of robbery: (1) the defendant (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) took property from (4) Koenig (5) by using or threatening the use of force on Koenig. The defendant could not be convicted at trial if these essential elements were not established. [42] Although the State may choose to do so, it is not required to include detailed factual allegations in the charging instrument. See IND.CODE § 35-34-1-2. [43] For example, in this case, the State could have charged as follows: Robert M. Richardson, II, on or about the 31st day of August 1996 did intentionally take property belonging to Jeffrey W. Koenig by using force. Had the State chosen to do so, the charging information would have been valid, as the essential elements were specified. The second offense at issue in this case is battery, as a class A misdemeanor. The statute provides that [a] person who knowingly or intentionally touches another person in a rude, insolent, or angry manner commits battery.... IND.CODE § 35-42-2-1 (1993). The offense becomes a class A misdemeanor if it results in bodily injury to any other person. Id. The charging instrument alleged that the defendant on or about the 31st day of August, 1996 ... did then and there knowingly or intentionally touch another person in a rude, insolent or angry manner that resulted in bodily injury in that the said defendant beat a certain Jeffrey W. Koenig with his fist to the extent that the said [Koenig] suffered bodily injury. Record at 5. The essential elements of the class A misdemeanor battery charge are: (1) the defendant (2) knowingly or intentionally (3) touched (4) Koenig (5) in a rude, insolent, or angry manner (6) resulting in bodily injury to Koenig. [44] Having identified the essential elements comprising the offense, we compare the essential elements of the two challenged offenses. Each offense must contain at least one element which is separate and distinct from the other offense so that the same evidence is not necessary to convict for both offenses. See Durke, 204 Ind. at 378, 183 N.E. at 100 (citing Foran, 195 Ind. at 60, 144 N.E. at 530 (citing Smith, 85 Ind. at 557)). In this case, the essential elements of the offense of battery as a class A misdemeanor include the element of a resulting bodily injury, which is not included in the essential elements of robbery. Furthermore, battery requires a touching in a rude, insolent, or angry manner, whereas robbery merely requires the use or threat of force. Also, an essential element of the robbery is the taking of some type of property from Koenig, which is separate and distinct from the essential elements of the battery. Under our statutory elements test, each offense of which the defendant was convicted contains at least one essential element that is separate and distinct from the other offense, and, therefore, the State could hypothetically prove separate offenses without using the same evidence. Thus, under the statutory elements test, there is no double jeopardy violation. [45]