Court Opinion

ID: 9859819
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 22:43:59.759606+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:07:50.769277
License: Public Domain

PIVARNIK, Justice,
concurring in part and dissenting in part.
I concur in this opinion with the exception of the majority's position in Issue IV, concerning the prohibitions of the Indiana Constitution, Art. I, § 14, and the 5th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution against multiple punishments for the same offense.
Appellant was convicted of attempted murder of the victim by cutting and stabbing her with a knife. He was also convicted under Count II of Class A felony burglary which was elevated from Class B to Class A because he had inflicted injury upon the victim during the burglary. The injury used for finding the class A felony burglary was the same stabbing and cutting with a knife used in the conviction for attempted murder. It is the holding of the majority that this violated the double jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and the corresponding provisions of our Indiana Constitution because it twice punished the defendant for the same act. I suggest this is the wrong test to apply in making a determination of double jeopardy. The focus of the double jeopardy inquiry is directed to whether the person is being punished for the same offense and not on the identity of its source. In Elmore v. State, (1978) 269 Ind. 532, 382 N.E.2d 893, this Court cited Blockburger v. U.S. (1932) 284 U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 75 L.Ed. 306, 309, as follows:
"In holding that under the Blockburger test a lesser included offense is the same as the greater offense, the Brown court stated: 'This test emphasizes the elements of the two crimes."" "If each requires proof that the other does not, the Blockburger test would be satisfied, notwithstanding a substantial overlap in *1255the proof offered to establish the crimes...." Ianelli v. U.S., (1975) 420 U.S. 770, 785, N. 17, 95 S.Ct. 1284, [1293, n. 17] 43 L.Ed.2d 616; and Gore v. U.S. (1958) 357 U.S. 386, 78 S.Ct. 1280, 2 L.Ed.2d 1405.' "
We further stated in EImore:
"The focus of a proper double jeopardy analysis must be on whether or not the offenses to be prosecuted and punished are the same, and not whether the offenses spring from the same act or operative circumstances. The inquiry into whether the offenses stem from the same act is merely the first step in the analysis. If the offenses are premised upon different acts, the problem is not so great. But where they do arise from the same act, we must proceed to determine whether the offenses charged are themselves the same, for the Double Jeopardy Clause was written in terms of the "same offence," not the same act. In other words, the fact that the offenses stem from the same act merely informs us that there is a potential problem; it is not a solution to the problem. The ultimate focus is on the identity of the offenses, not on the identity of the source."
The analysis used by the majority of felony murder and class A murder is not a proper analysis here. Felony murder and class A murder are the same offense, that is, murder. Not only are they based on the same acts of the defendant but they name the same offense. In the instant case that is not so. The only relationship between these two crimes, attempted murder and class A burglary, is the one single act of inflicting injury by stabbing with a knife. The offenses are distinct, separate, and require additional facts in each case for conviction and sentencing.
It is my view there was no violation of the double jeopardy prohibition by finding Defendant guilty and sentencing him for both attempted murder and class A felony burglary. Accordingly, I would affirm the trial court in this issue as well as all others.