Lee v. State
892 N.E.2d 1231 (2008)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Multiple convictions do not violate Indiana’s Double Jeopardy Clause if the convictions could logically have been based on the same facts, so long as there is no reasonable possibility that the jury actually used the exact same set of facts to establish both convictions, based on a review of the charges, evidence, jury instructions, and counsel's arguments.
Facts:
- On September 26, 2000, Roderick Lee and two accomplices went to the home of Dell Riley and her ten-year-old daughter, Ashley.
- When Dell Riley opened the front door, Lee and the others barged into the home.
- Inside, Lee and his companions repeatedly pointed guns at Dell, threatened her, and demanded money.
- After hearing the commotion, Ashley came downstairs from her bedroom.
- Lee continued to threaten Dell and demand money while her daughter was present.
- While Lee was looking through Dell's purse, Dell and Ashley escaped through the back door and called the police.
Procedural Posture:
- Roderick Lee was convicted of burglary and attempted armed robbery in a state trial court.
- Lee appealed his convictions to the Indiana Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, which affirmed the trial court's judgment.
- Lee filed a petition for post-conviction relief in a trial-level court, arguing his counsel was ineffective for failing to raise a double jeopardy claim.
- The post-conviction court denied Lee's petition, finding no double jeopardy violation had occurred.
- Lee, as the appellant, appealed the denial to the Indiana Court of Appeals, with the State as the appellee.
- A majority of the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of relief, though on different grounds.
- The Indiana Supreme Court granted Lee's petition to transfer the case for its review.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Do convictions for both burglary and attempted armed robbery violate the Indiana Constitution's Double Jeopardy Clause under the 'actual evidence' test when a single act could logically support an element of both crimes, but other distinct acts were presented to support each crime separately?
Opinions:
Majority - Boehm, J.
No, the convictions do not violate Indiana's Double Jeopardy Clause. A 'reasonable possibility' of overlap under the actual evidence test requires more than a mere logical or theoretical possibility; it requires a practical assessment of whether the jury may have used the same facts for both convictions. The court's reasoning is that the 'actual evidence' test is not a hyper-technical inquiry into logical possibilities but a practical evaluation of the trial record. To determine if there is a 'reasonable possibility' of factual overlap, courts must review the charging information, jury instructions, and arguments of counsel. In this case, the burglary was complete the moment Lee barged into the home. The attempted armed robbery, however, was primarily established by the distinct and subsequent acts of pointing a gun, making threats, and demanding money inside the home. The prosecutor's closing argument highlighted these separate facts for each crime, making it highly unlikely that the jury relied solely on the act of 'barging in' to establish the 'substantial step' element of attempted armed robbery. Therefore, because there was no reasonable possibility the jury used the same facts to convict on both counts, the convictions are upheld.
Analysis:
This decision refines Indiana's 'actual evidence' test for double jeopardy, moving it from a potentially rigid, theoretical application to a more pragmatic, holistic review of the trial proceedings. By emphasizing a 'reasonable possibility' over a 'logical possibility,' the court makes it more difficult for defendants to succeed on double jeopardy claims where a criminal episode involves a series of distinct acts. The ruling instructs lower courts to conduct a practical assessment of how the case was presented to the jury, focusing on the charging documents, jury instructions, and closing arguments. This clarification provides prosecutors with a clearer roadmap on how to frame charges and arguments to avoid double jeopardy issues, while simultaneously narrowing the scope of the 'actual evidence' defense for defendants.
Unlock the full brief for Lee v. State