Opinion ID: 853232
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Continuous Criminal Act

Text: The trial court found that Williams' entry into a locked apartment after fleeing police was an intervening act ... sufficient enough for them to have two separate cases. (R. at 188.) We disagree. To determine whether contemporaneous crimes are part of a single scheme or plan, we examine whether they are connected by a distinctive nature, have a common modus operandi, and a common motive. Henderson v. State, 647 N.E.2d 7, 10 (Ind. Ct.App.1995) (citations omitted). The record reveals that after buying the cocaine Detective Witten radioed Williams' description and sent Officer Weaver up there. (R. at 248.) During a pre-trial hearing Williams testified that when he turned around and took a few steps five or six police cars had arrived. (Supp. R. at 25.) He ran and the police pursued him into an unoccupied apartment. (Supp. R. at 25.) These facts show that the Court 9 and Court 20 charges were based on a series of acts so connected that they constituted parts of a single scheme or plan. Therefore, they should have been charged in a single prosecution.