Court Opinion

ID: 9744788
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 22:16:09.863554+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:51.746797
License: Public Domain

Opinion Concurring in Result
Staton, P.J.
I concur in result. The majority has unnecessarily and improperly applied Hardin v. State (1976), 265 Ind. 635, 358 N.E.2d 134 retroactively. The Indiana Supreme Court was silent on the retroactive application of Hardin. Its application in Davila’s appeal is unnecessary. Berry v. State (1974), 162.Ind. App. 626, 321 N.E.2d 207.
There was probable cause to suspect in Hardin as there is here. To apply the new rule enunciated in Hardin to Davila’s appeal would be a denial of procedural due process. Welch v. Beto (1966), 355 F.2d 1016; United States ex rel. Smith v. Baldi (3 Cir. 1951), 192 F.2d 540, 544, aff’d 344 U.S. 561, 73 S.Ct. 391, 97 L.Ed.2d 549 (1953).
During Davila’s trial which was long before the new rule in Hardin, the State had the burden to prove probable cause to suspect. This burden was a necessary element to Davila’s *431defense of entrapment. It was a part of Davila’s trial strategy for his defense. For example, suppose that the State could not prove guilt without carrying its burden of showing probable cause to suspect and it failed to carry the burden, but the State obtained a conviction through an erroneous ruling of the trial court. The defense strategy was to appeal without presenting evidence in behalf of the defendant. However, during the process of appealing the error, the rule requiring probable cause to suspect was eliminated by the Supreme Court as it was in Hardin. This would mean that the State actually obtained a conviction on appeal that it could not have obtained during the trial of the defendant. Berry v. State, supra.
Note. — Reported at 360 N.E.2d 283.