Hoover v. State
918 N.E.2d 724, 2009 Ind. App. LEXIS 2848, 2009 WL 5173515 (2009)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under Indiana Code § 35-41-4-3(a), a formal judgment of conviction for a lesser-included offense constitutes an acquittal of the greater offense, thereby barring the state from retrying the defendant on the greater offense, even if the jury deadlocked on that charge.
Facts:
- Alan Hoover lived with his friend, Mike Wilson, but was asked to move out in late October 2008.
- On the night of October 26, 2008, Hoover went to Wilson's trailer, where the two men got into a physical fight.
- During the fight, Hoover struck Wilson several times with his fists, leaving Wilson unconscious on the floor; Wilson later died from blunt force trauma to the head.
- Hoover took Wilson's keys immediately after the fight so Wilson could not leave if he woke up.
- Hoover left and returned to the trailer with his daughter, Casi, and son-in-law, Jon, to retrieve his belongings.
- While back at the trailer, Casi witnessed Hoover take money from Wilson's wallet.
- Police later found Wilson's cell phone on the ground near Hoover's car and found Wilson's keys in Hoover's possession upon his arrest.
Procedural Posture:
- The State charged Alan Hoover in an Indiana trial court with murder, felony murder, and Class A felony robbery.
- A jury trial was held.
- The jury returned verdicts acquitting Hoover of murder and convicting him of robbery.
- The jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict (deadlocked) on the felony murder charge.
- The trial court entered a judgment of conviction on the robbery verdict and declared a mistrial on the felony murder count, dismissing it without prejudice.
- Hoover (appellant) appealed his robbery conviction and the dismissal without prejudice of the felony murder charge to the Indiana Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a defendant's conviction for a lesser-included offense (robbery) bar retrial on a greater offense (felony murder) on which the jury deadlocked, under Indiana's statutory double jeopardy provision?
Opinions:
Majority - Vaidik, J.
Yes, the defendant's conviction for the lesser-included offense bars retrial on the greater offense. While federal double jeopardy principles generally permit retrial following a hung jury, Indiana Code § 35-41-4-3(a) provides greater protection. The statute explicitly states that 'a conviction of an included offense constitutes an acquittal of the greater offense.' In this case, robbery is a lesser-included offense of felony murder. Because the trial court entered a formal judgment of conviction on the jury's guilty verdict for robbery, the statute is triggered. This statutory 'implied acquittal' of the felony murder charge bars the State from retrying Hoover on that count, notwithstanding the jury's deadlock.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies that Indiana's statutory double jeopardy protection is broader than the federal constitutional standard regarding hung juries on greater offenses. It establishes a bright-line rule: the formal entry of judgment on a lesser-included offense is the dispositive event that statutorily bars retrial of a greater offense upon which the jury hung. This holding prevents prosecutors from having a 'second bite at the apple' on a greater charge once a conviction for the underlying lesser offense is secured, providing finality for defendants in such situations. The case emphasizes the importance of specific state statutes in defining the scope of individual rights beyond federal constitutional minimums.
