Court Opinion

ID: 9714441
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:37:32.893665+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:26.072436
License: Public Domain

STATON, Judge,
dissenting in part and concurring in part.
I dissent in part and concur in part. I dissent as to Issue V dealing with double jeopardy. The majority erroneously applies a same-conduct test to prohibit sentencing Shipley for murder and neglect of a dependant. While Indiana adopted a same-conduct test in Tawney v. State (1982), Ind., 439 N.E.2d 582, 588, reh. denied, and the United States Supreme Court adopted a same-conduct test in Grady v. Corbin (1990), 495 U.S. 508, 110 S.Ct. 2084, 109 L.Ed.2d 548, the United States Supreme Court has since overruled Grady. See United States v. Alvin J. Dixon and Michael Foster, - U.S. -, -, 113 S.Ct. 2849, 2864, 125 L.Ed.2d 556 (1993). In Dixon, supra, the Court determined the same-conduct test was unstable in its application and the same-elements test established in Blockburger v. United States, 284 *720U.S. 299, 304, 52 S.Ct. 180, 182, 76 L.Ed. 306 (1932) should be the controlling test for double jeopardy analysis. Dixon, - U.S. at -, 113 S.Ct. at 2863.
Applying the Blockburger analysis to the present case, the crimes of murder and neglect of a dependent have different statutory elements. Specifically, IND.CODE 35-86-1-4 (1988) provides in relevant part:
A person having the care of a dependent . who knowingly or intentionally ... places the dependent in a situation that may endanger his life or health ... commits neglect of a dependent....
IND.CODE 35-42-1-1 (Supp.1992) provides in relevant part:
A person who ... knowingly or intentionally kills another human being ... commits murder, a felony.
The majority's opinion allows Shipley to commit these two separate and distinct offenses and only be punished for one offense. This is the type of instability in the same-conduct test which induced the United States Supreme Court to overrule Grady, supra. See Dixon, supra.
In the present case, the jury heard testimony that Amy's body was covered with bruises at various stages of healing; that Amy was forced to swallow dishwashing soap; and that Amy was forced to consume liquids and foods which were laced with pepper. Additionally, the jury heard Dr. Stephen Cole testify that the long term ingestion of pepper was a form of child abuse. The information in the present case covered a fifty-four day period. Even if the acts of neglect may overlap with some of the acts contained in the murder charge, there is no double jeopardy under Flowers v. State (1985), Ind., 481 N.E.2d 100, 105-06, aff'd (1988), Ind., 518 N.E.2d 1096.
The same-conduct test allows a person to commit two separate crimes with different elements and escape the consequences of a portion of her actions. The instability of the same-conduct test is reflected in the result the majority adopts in the present case. Because of the inherent instability in the application of the same-conduct test, I conclude we should follow the lead of the United States Supreme Court in discarding the same-conduct test and limit our double jeopardy analysis to that set forth in Blockburger. See Dixon, supra.