Court Opinion

ID: 9737944
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:37:49.741679+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:02.693354
License: Public Domain

*1187GARRARD, Judge,
concurring.
In issue III the majority determines that it was not error to refuse Robertson's instruction on possession as a lesser included offense because he was charged with dealing. Jones v. State to the contrary notwithstanding, it continues to elude me how in reason or logic it can be said that an "inherently included offense" is somehow not inherently included in the offense which is charged. On the other hand, numerous decisions have held that it is not error to refuse to instruct on the lesser offense where there is no substantial dispute concerning the existence of the element which distinguishes the greater offense from the lesser. See, e.g., Lawrence v. State (1978) 268 Ind. 330, 375 N.E.2d 208. In Robertson's case no such substantial dispute can be said to have existed. I therefore concur in the result reached on this issue.
Concerning issue IV, I coneur with the majority's determination that the issue has been waived for failure to comply with the appellate rules, specifically AR 8.8(A)(7). The preliminary instruction in question apparently concerned the jury's function to determine the facts and law. If the court were properly requested to reread the preliminary instructions and the one in question correctly stated the law, I believe Criminal Rule 8(G) requires the court to repeat it as part of the final instructions.
I concur with the majority on the other issues, although I lament the expenditure of judicial time and resources to treat issues that are beyond the spirit of the rules for post-conviction relief and which PCR 1, See. 8 would deem waived had the office of the prosecuting attorney asserted waiver in its answer to the petition. }