Opinion ID: 2232382
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Criminal Conversion

Text: Appellant also argues that the trial court erred by refusing to charge the jury with the following instruction which he tendered: You are instructed that Criminal Conversion is a lesser included offense of Robbery. Criminal Conversion is defined as a person who knowingly or intentionally exerts unauthorized control over property of another person and is a Class A misdemeanor. In reviewing claims that a trial court has erroneously refused to give an instruction on a lesser included offense, we use a two-step standard. First, an examination of the statutes and the charging information or indictment must indicate that a conviction of the crime charged necessitates proof of all the essential elements of the lesser offense and of the distinguishing element. Lawrence v. State (1978), 268 Ind. 330, 375 N.E.2d 208. The second step is to examine the evidence presented at trial for the element which distinguishes the two offenses. Malott v. State (1985), Ind., 485 N.E.2d 879. If there is evidence of probative value on the distinguishing element which would not produce a compromise verdict, then the lesser included offense instruction would be proper. Appellant has not satisfied the second step of this test. While conversion is a lesser included offense of robbery, it is not error to refuse such a tendered instruction when there is no question that all the elements of the robbery were present. Rogers v. State (1979), 272 Ind. 65, 396 N.E.2d 348. This Court has previously sanctioned the refusal of the trial court to charge the jury with an instruction on a lesser included offense when the evidence produced to prove the element or elements differentiating the alleged greater and lesser offenses ... has substantial probative value and is not in serious dispute. Lawrence, 375 N.E.2d at 213; Feyerchak v. State (1978), 270 Ind. 157, 383 N.E.2d 1023, 1026. In an opinion written by Justice DeBruler, this Court explained that [s]hould the jury return a verdict of guilty of the proposed lesser offense upon consideration of such evidence, their verdict could not but be the product of a compromise between jurors who believe the accused guilty of the offense charged and those who believe him not guilty thereof, which is the unacceptable result sought to be foreclosed by the Hash rule. Lawrence, 375 N.E.2d at 213. The element which distinguishes the offense of robbery from the offense of conversion is the use or threat of force or fear. In this case the victim testified that Jones grabbed his arm, pulled his body, and then forced him to the ground. This evidence had substantial probative value and was not disputed. Therefore, the trial court correctly refused to charge the jury that conversion was a lesser included offense of this robbery. Judgment affirmed. GIVAN, C.J., and DeBRULER, PIVARNIK and DICKSON, JJ., concur.