Opinion ID: 4556500
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Framework for Statutory Analysis

Text: In determining whether a single criminal statute permits multiple punishments for multiple victims, Indiana courts (as with other jurisdictions) often distinguish conduct-based statutes from result-based statutes. Stafford v. State, 83 N.E.3d 721, 724 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017). See also Wayne R. LaFave, Variations in Definitions of Crimes, 1 Substantive Crim. L. § 1.2(c) (3d ed. 2018) (discussing the same).11 A conduct-based statute, under our criminal code, consists of an offense defined by certain actions or behavior (e.g., operating a vehicle) and the presence of an attendant circumstance (e.g., intoxication). Stafford, 83 N.E.3d at 724 (quoting Kelly, 527 N.E.2d at 1155). Under these statutes, the crime is complete once the offender engages in the prohibited conduct, regardless of whether that conduct produces a specific result (e.g., multiple victims). Id. (quoting Kelly, 527 N.E.2d at 1155). The focus—or “gravamen”—of the statutory offense is the defendant’s actions, not the consequences of those actions. Id. at 723, 724 (quoting Kelly, 527 N.E.2d at 1155). To be sure, a specific result or consequence (e.g., death or serious bodily injury) may enhance the penalty imposed. Mathews v. State, 849 N.E.2d 578, 582 (Ind. 2006). But “multiple consequences do not establish multiple crimes,” since the crime may still be committed without the consequence. Id. See also Stafford, 83 N.E.3d at 724 (quoting Kelly, 527 N.E.2d at 1155) (“The multiple egregious results do not increase the number of crimes, only the penalty.”). Indeed, under a conduct-based statute, “a single discrete incident can be the basis for only one conviction, no matter how many individuals are harmed.” Paquette v. State, 101 N.E.3d 234, 239 (Ind. 2018). 11Federal and state courts alike apply variations of this analytical framework. See, e.g., Rentz, 777 F.3d at 1110 (observing that “the statute’s operative verb” focuses the court’s “attention on how many times the defendant performed [the proscribed] act”); United States v. Prestenbach, 230 F.3d 780, 783 (5th Cir. 2000) (analyzing only the “physical conduct of the defendant” since the statute described the number of victims in ambiguous terms); State v. Ramirez, 409 P.3d 902, 916–17 (N.M. 2017) (comparing state child-abuse statute’s emphasis on both defendant’s conduct and multiple victims); Harris v. State, 359 S.W.3d 625, 630 (Tex. Crim. App. 2011) (using similar analysis). Indiana Supreme Court | Case No. 19S-CR-527 | August 18, 2020 Page 10 of 19 A result-based statute, on the other hand, consists of an offense defined by the defendant’s actions and the results or consequences of those actions. “In crimes such as murder, manslaughter, battery and reckless homicide, the gravamen of the offense is causing the death or injury of another person, i.e., the result is part of the definition of the crime.” Kelly, 527 N.E.2d at 1155. In other words, “the resulting death, injury or [offensive] touching is an element of the crime.” Mathews, 849 N.E.2d at 582. And that crime is complete so long as “the required actus reus and mental state are present.” Id. Under these statutes, then, “where several deaths or injuries occur in the course of a single incident,” the prohibited offense has been perpetrated “several times over.” Kelly, 527 N.E.2d at 1155. “The separate victims represent different offenses because conduct has been directed at each particular victim.”12 Id. In short, crimes defined by conduct (rather than by consequence) permit only a single conviction (with multiple consequences resulting in enhanced penalties, not multiple crimes). But crimes defined by consequence (rather than by conduct) permit multiple convictions when multiple consequences flow from a single criminal act. With these principles in mind, we now turn to our attempted-murder statute.