Court Opinion

ID: 9505662
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 20:14:11.616401+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:04:40.990262
License: Public Domain

BOEHM, Justice,
concurring in result.
I concur fully in parts 1, 3 and 4 of the majority opinion and concur in the result reached in part 2. However, as explained in my opinion concurring in result in Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 57 (Ind.1999), I reach that conclusion based on the common law rule that requires that the facts giving rise to both offenses be “independently supportable, separate and distinct.” Thompson v. State, 259 Ind. 587, 592, 290 N.E.2d 724, 727 (1972). The jury *103was instructed that the State must prove “serious bodily injury” to Hilt as the requirement to elevate the burglary conviction to an A felony, and also as an element of criminal recklessness. Mclntire’s dual convictions cannot stand because there is a reasonable probability that the same bodily injury that elevated the burglary charge to a Class A felony formed the basis of the criminal recklessness charge.
Nor are the dual convictions for confinement and intimidation permissible under Thompson. The intimidation conviction was based on Mclntire’s threat, while armed with the baseball bat, to kill Lovell if she left and his confinement conviction was based on his confining Lovell, while armed with the bat, in her home without her consent. Because there is a reasonable probability that the same actions supported both convictions, I agree with the majority that the intimidation conviction must be vacated.
SELBY, J., concurs.