FILED
Jan 09 2018, 5:48 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Joel M. Schumm Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Indiana University Robert H. McKinney Attorney General of Indiana
School of Law Ellen H. Meilaender
Indianapolis, Indiana Supervising Deputy Attorney
Seth M. Smoker General
Certified Legal Intern Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Robert Wilder, January 9, 2018
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
49A02-1706-CR-1420
v. Appeal from the Marion
Superior Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Peggy R. Hart,
Appellee-Plaintiff. Magistrate
Trial Court Cause No.
49G10-1609-CM-37937
Bailey, Judge.
Case Summary
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 1 of 21
[1] Robert Wilder (“Wilder”) appeals his conviction, following a jury trial, of
battery resulting in bodily injury, as a Class A misdemeanor,1 and the term of
his probation that prohibits him from possessing firearms. We affirm.
Issues
[2] Wilder raises the following two issues on appeal:
I. Whether the detective’s testimony violated Indiana Rule of
Evidence 704(b) and its admission was fundamental error.
II. Whether the condition of probation which prohibits him
from possessing firearms during his probation period
violates his right to bear arms, as protected by the Second
Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article
1, § 32 of the Indiana Constitution.
Facts and Procedural History
[3] Wilder owns and operates a pierogi food truck. Food truck operators must
operate out of a commissary or licensed board of health kitchen, and Wilder’s
commissary is on the south side of Indianapolis next to a bar and restaurant
called The Tailgate, which is owned by Dennis Turpen (“Turpen”).
[4] At approximately 12:30 p.m. on August 6, 2016, Wilder went to his
commissary to pick up frozen pierogi. Wilder’s sixteen-year-old son was
1
Ind. Code § 35-42-2-1(d)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 2 of 21
driving Wilder’s vehicle, and Wilder’s friend, William Greuesser (“Greuesser”),
was a passenger in the back seat of the vehicle. Turpen had parked his truck in
an alley behind his restaurant—where there are no parking spaces—in order to
unload supplies from his truck and take them into his restaurant. Although
Turpen’s truck was not blocking the alley access, it was parked in such a
manner that passing around his vehicle would be difficult. Wilder and Turpen
had previously argued on several occasions about Turpen parking his car
behind his restaurant. Believing his son, who was an inexperienced driver,
would not be able to drive around Turpen’s truck, Wilder called out to Turpen
to move his truck. Turpen responded that it would only take him a few minutes
to unload his truck, and pointed out that there was room enough to drive
around his truck.
[5] Wilder became angry, yelled at Turpen, and then exited his vehicle and
approached Turpen. An altercation ensued during which Wilder tackled
Turpen and got Turpen face-down on the ground. Wilder knelt on top of
Turpen and placed his forearm on the back of Turpen’s neck. William Camp
(“Camp”), who was across the street from Turpen and Wilder at a strip mall,
did not see how the altercation began but he did witness Wilder holding Turpen
down on the ground and banging Turpen’s face onto the ground. Wilder then
got up and went to Turpen’s truck, where he began throwing things out of the
truck and onto the ground. Wilder then got into the driver’s seat of his own
vehicle and sped away. Turpen sustained bleeding lacerations to his hands,
arms, elbows, face and one knee. Wilder was not injured.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 3 of 21
[6] Both Turpen and Camp independently called 9-1-1 to report the incident.
Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) Officer James Rusk
(“Officer Rusk”) responded to the 9-1-1 calls. When he arrived at The Tailgate,
he saw that Turpen had blood on his nose, hands, elbows, and knees. Camp
approached Officer Rusk and informed him that he had witnessed the
altercation. Officer Rusk interviewed both Turpen and Camp at the scene.
[7] IMPD Detective Kevin Duley (“Det. Duley”) was assigned to investigate the
incident further. As part of his investigation, Det. Duley interviewed Turpen
five days after the incident and noticed that Turpen still had injuries on his nose
and hands. Det. Duley also interviewed Camp regarding the incident. Det.
Duley showed Camp an array of photographs, including one of Wilder, and
Camp identified Wilder as the person whom he saw kneeling on top of Turpen
and banging Turpen’s head on the ground on August 6.
[8] The State charged Wilder with battery resulting in bodily injury as a Class A
misdemeanor. At his May 15, 2017, jury trial, Wilder contended that he had
acted in self-defense because Turpen had swung at him first. As part of that
defense, and beginning in his opening statement, Wilder attacked the quality of
the police investigation and, specifically, the fact that police never spoke to
Wilder, his son, or Greuesser before filing charges. In his opening statement,
Wilder’s attorney stated:
The police investigation, which you will also learn today, uh,
spoke to Turpen and Camp and that’s it, never talked to my
client. If they had they would have found out that there was
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 4 of 21
another eye witness and you will hear from him today too. …
And, if the police had investigated this case appropriately
you’d—they’d know that there was reasonable doubt.
Tr. Vol. II at 38-39. On cross-examination of Officer Rusk, Wilder’s attorney
elicited testimony that Officer Rusk never interviewed Wilder, his son, or
Greuesser, and that Officer Rusk did not take photographs at the scene, collect
DNA evidence, inspect Turpen’s head for more injuries, call in an evidence
technician, or check if there were surveillance videos at surrounding businesses
that may have recorded the altercation.
[9] Following Officer Rusk’s testimony, the State called Det. Duley to testify. He
was the State’s final witness in its case-in-chief, and the prosecutor asked the
detective why he never spoke to Wilder during his investigation. Det. Duley
replied:
I felt that the evidence was sufficient that a battery had occurred,
and uh[,] in speaking with Mr. Camp[,] his testimony to me
corroborated what the victim said. And, in my opinion, Mr.
Camp did not have a dog in the fight. He would have been better
off to just walk away from the whole thing. Um, so it, it played a
lot or it waived [sic] heavily for me that he was willing to stick
around and give testimony that backed up what the victim said.
That being said[,] I also felt like this was a case that maybe
needed to see its day in court, as opposed to me taking a
statement and—it be tried in the Prosecutor’s Office so to speak.
So[,] I submitted it to the Prosecutor for charging.
Tr. Vol. II at 117.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 5 of 21
[10] On May 15, the jury found Wilder guilty as charged. At the June 5 sentencing
hearing, the State requested a no-contact order. Wilder did not object to the
issuance of a no-contact order, but he asked the court to remove from its terms
the prohibition on possessing a firearm, as this case did not involve the use of
any firearm. The trial court imposed a 365-day sentence, all suspended to
probation except for time served. The court imposed standard conditions of
probation which included a condition that Wilder “not possess a firearm,
destructive device, or other dangerous weapon or live in a residence where there
are such items.” App. Vol. II at 119. The court also imposed a no-contact order
as a condition of probation, which included an order that Wilder “have no
firearms, deadly weapons, or ammunition in his/her possession.” Id. at 30.
This appeal ensued.
Discussion and Decision
Indiana Rule of Evidence 704(b)
[11] Wilder contends that Det. Duley’s testimony that he turned Wilder’s case over
to the prosecutor without first interviewing Wilder because he “felt the evidence
was sufficient that a battery had occurred,” Tr. Vol. II at 117, violated Indiana
Rule of Evidence 704(b) and should have been stricken. As our Supreme Court
has recently noted,
[w]e review evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion resulting in
prejudicial error. Carpenter v. State, 786 N.E.2d 696, 702 (Ind.
2003). A trial court abuses its discretion when its ruling is either
clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 6 of 21
before the court, or when the court misinterprets the law. Id. at
703. To determine whether an error prejudiced a defendant, “we
assess the probable impact the evidence had upon the jury in light
of all of the other evidence that was properly presented.” Blount
v. State, 22 N.E.3d 559, 564 (Ind. 2014). If the conviction is
properly supported by other independent evidence of guilt, the
error is harmless. Id.
Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578, 581 (Ind. 2015).
[12] Wilder failed to object at trial to the challenged testimony. A defendant must
object to an alleged error to preserve the issue for appeal; issues raised for the
first time on appeal are waived. See, e.g., Washington v. State, 808 N.E.2d 617,
625 (Ind. 2004). The purpose of the contemporaneous objection requirement is
to give the trial court a chance to avoid or correct the harmful error, thereby
securing a fair and proper verdict. Clark v. State, 6 N.E.3d 992, 998 (Ind. Ct.
App. 2014). “[A] trial court cannot be found to have erred as to an issue or
argument that it never had an opportunity to consider.” Washington, 808
N.E.2d at 625. Therefore, Wilder has waived the claim on review.
[13] However, Wilder maintains that the admission of the challenged testimony was
fundamental error. The fundamental error exception to waiver is extremely
narrow and applies only when the error constitutes a blatant denial of basic due
process principles that makes it impossible to receive a fair trial. See Ryan v.
State, 9 N.E.3d 663, 668 (Ind. 2014). Thus, a matter rising to the level of
fundamental error is a matter that the trial court had a sua sponte duty to correct.
Id. “Fundamental error is meant to permit appellate courts a means to correct
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 7 of 21
the most egregious and blatant trial errors that otherwise would have been
procedurally barred, not to provide a second bite at the apple for defense
counsel who ignorantly, carelessly, or strategically fail to preserve an error.” Id.
[14] Wilder asserts that Det. Duley’s testimony that he “felt the evidence was
sufficient that a battery had occurred” was the statement of a legal conclusion,
in violation of Indiana Rule of Evidence 704(b). That rule precludes a witness
from testifying “to opinions concerning intent, guilt, or innocence in a criminal
case; the truth or falsity of allegations; whether a witness has testified truthfully;
or legal conclusions.”
[15] Even if Det. Duley’s challenged testimony was an otherwise improper legal
conclusion or ultimate opinion of Wilder’s guilt,2 it was nevertheless admissible
because Wilder “opened the door” to such testimony when he raised the issue
of the sufficiency of the police investigation.
Opening the door refers to the principle that where one party
introduces evidence of a particular fact, the opposing party is
entitled to introduce evidence in explanation or rebuttal thereof,
even though the rebuttal evidence otherwise would have been
inadmissible. See Clark v. State, 915 N.E.2d 126, 130, 131 (Ind.
2009).
2
See, e.g., Williams v. State, 43 N.E.3d 578, 581 (Ind. 2015) (holding a detective’s testimony that a
“transaction for cocaine” had occurred was a declaration of an ultimate opinion of the defendant’s guilt, in
violation of Rule 704(b)); Bradford v. State, 960 N.E.2d 871, 876 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (holding Department of
Child Services caseworker’s testimony that she “substantiated sexual abuse, meaning our office feels that
there was enough evidence to conclude that sexual abuse occurred,” was an improper opinion of the truth of
the allegations, in violation of 704(b)).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 8 of 21
Sampson v. State, 38 N.E.3d 985, 992 n.4 (Ind. 2015). Evidence which opens the
door “must leave the trier of fact with a false or misleading impression of the
facts related.” Cameron v. State, 22 N.E.3d 588, 593 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014).
When that happens, the State may introduce otherwise inadmissible evidence if
it “is a fair response to evidence elicited by the defendant.” Id.
[16] Here, Wilder “opened the door” for Det. Duley’s testimony by attacking, in
both his opening statement and his cross-examination of Officer Rusk, the
sufficiency of the police investigation and, more specifically, the State’s decision
to bring charges against Wilder before police spoke with him and his witnesses.
Wilder’s attorney’s opening remarks and cross-examination of Officer Rusk
necessarily left the jury with the false impression that police must interview all
witnesses before the State may file criminal charges. The State was entitled at
that point to elicit testimony about why it brought charges against Wilder
without first interviewing him, his son, or his friend who was in the car with
him.3 The trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to, sua sponte,
exclude that testimony.4
3
For the same reason, the trial court did not err in allowing Det. Duley’s testimony that appears to vouch
for the credibility of Camp as a witness. Again, it was Wilder who first introduced the idea that the police
had not “investigated this case appropriately.” Tr. Vol. II at 38-39. Det. Duley’s testimony that he thought
Camp’s non-biased account of the incident, together with the victim’s statement, was sufficient to charge
Wilder with battery was in direct response to Wilder’s contention that the police failed to properly investigate
the case when they did not interview Wilder or his witnesses. Thus, Wilder opened the door to Det.
Dudley’s “vouching testimony” and it was admissible. See Sampson, 38 N.E.3d at 992.
4
Because we hold that Det. Duley’s challenged testimony was admissible, we do not address the State’s
argument that any error was harmless.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 9 of 21
Probation Condition Prohibiting Possession of Firearms
Standard of Review
[17] Wilder maintains that the condition of probation that prohibits him from
possessing firearms during his probation period5 violates his right to bear arms,
as protected by the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution and
Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution. Probation is a criminal
sanction wherein a convicted defendant specifically agrees to accept conditions
upon his behavior in lieu of imprisonment. See, e.g., Bratcher v. State, 999
N.E.2d 864, 873 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), trans. denied.
A trial court enjoys broad discretion when determining the
appropriate conditions of probation. Freije v. State, 709 N.E.2d
323, 324 (Ind. 1999). This discretion is limited only by the
principle that the conditions imposed must be reasonably related
to the treatment of the defendant and the protection of public
safety. Carswell v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1255, 1258 (Ind. Ct .App.
1999). Where, as here, the defendant challenges a probationary
condition on the basis that it is unduly intrusive on a
constitutional right, we will evaluate that claim by balancing the
following factors: (1) The purpose to be served by probation, (2)
the extent to which constitutional rights enjoyed by law-abiding
citizens should be enjoyed by probationers, and (3) the legitimate
needs of law enforcement.
5
That condition is authorized by Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-2.3(a)(9). Wilder does not attack the
constitutionality of the statute on its face, only as applied to him.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 10 of 21
Smith v. State, 779 N.E.2d 111, 117 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002), trans. denied; see also
Taylor v. State, 820 N.E.2d 756, 761 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005) (quotation and citation
omitted) (“Convicted individuals do not enjoy the same constitutional
protections as law-abiding citizens. In the context of these constitutional
freedoms, a state action is valid if reasonably related to legitimate penological
interests.”), trans. denied.
Purpose to Be Served by Probation Condition
[18] The crime Wilder committed—battery resulting in bodily injury—was, by
definition, a crime of violence. I.C. § 35-42-2-1(d)(1). The probation condition
at issue here is meant to keep dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who
have shown a propensity for violence, and that is a legitimate and important
government purpose. See, e.g., United States v. Yancy, 621 F.3d 681, 683-84 (7th
Cir. 2010) (noting the important government purpose of a federal law
prohibiting unlawful users of, or addicts to, controlled substances from
possessing firearms was “to keep guns out of the hands of presumptively risky
people”); see also, Redington v. State, 992 N.E.2d 823, 833 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013)
(holding a state statute had the legitimate government purposes of permitting
seizure of firearms from individuals found to meet the statutory definition of
“dangerous”), trans. denied.
[19] The fact that Wilder’s violent crime did not involve use of a firearm is not
dispositive; it is the propensity of the probationer toward violence that is
relevant to the need to prohibit possession of dangerous weapons such as
firearms. See, e.g., United States v. Muehlhausen, No. 1:12-CR-00102-TWP-
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 11 of 21
DML-51, 2013 WL 3043682, *4 (S.D. Ind. June 17, 2013) (holding the
government had “a legitimate interest in keeping someone with [defendant]’s
prior conduct history [of violent misdemeanors] from possessing firearms.”); cf.
Carswell, 721 N.E.2d at 1265 (holding that a condition of probation prohibiting
a convicted child molester from using drugs or alcohol was reasonable, even in
the absence of evidence that drugs or alcohol played any part in his crimes,
since drug possession is illegal and “[t]he propensity of alcohol to impair
judgment and reduce inhibition is known”).
[20] The legitimate and important purpose of the probation condition prohibiting
possession of firearms, as applied to Wilder, is to keep dangerous weapons out
of the hands of a probationer whose underlying crime has shown he has a
propensity toward violence resulting in harm to others.
Extent to which the Right to Bear Arms should be Afforded to Wilder
I. The Second Amendment
[21] The Second Amendment states in its entirety: “A well regulated Militia, being
necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.” U.S. Const. amend. II. The United States
Supreme Court has held that the “core protection” of the Second Amendment
is “the right of law-abiding, responsible citizens to use arms in defense of hearth
and home.” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570, 635 (2008); see also
McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. 742 (2010) (holding Second Amendment
protections are applicable to the states). However, some categorical exclusions
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 12 of 21
on firearm possession may be constitutional. See, e.g., United States v. Skoien,
614 F.3d 638, 641 (7th Cir. 2010) (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-27)
(“‘[N]othing in our opinion should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding
prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws
forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and
government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the
commercial sale of arms.’”), cert. denied.
[22] The federal courts use a two-pronged approach when analyzing a Second
Amendment challenge to a law: (1) Does the challenged law impose a burden
on conduct falling within the scope of the Second Amendment’s guarantee? If
not, the inquiry is complete. (2) If it does impose such a burden, does the law
pass a heightened level of scrutiny? See, e.g., Ezell v. City of Chicago, 651 F.3d
684, 703-04 (7th Cir. 2011), and cases cited therein. What level of scrutiny
applies depends upon the severity of the burden on Second Amendment rights,
although the scrutiny must, in any case, be stronger than rational basis review.
Id. at 701, 708 (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 628-29 & n.27).
First, a severe burden on the core Second Amendment right of
armed self-defense will require an extremely strong public-
interest justification and a close fit between the government’s
means and its end. Second, laws restricting activity lying closer
to the margins of the Second Amendment right, laws that merely
regulate rather than restrict, and modest burdens on the right
may be more easily justified. How much more easily depends on
the relative severity of the burden and its proximity to the core of
the right.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 13 of 21
Id. at 708. This same analysis applies to categorical exclusions that are within
the scope of the Second Amendment. See, e.g., United States v. Williams, 616
F.3d 685, 692 (7th Cir. 2010), cert. denied.
[23] Here, the state statute authorizing a prohibition on possession of firearms as a
probation condition, generally, seems to allow a categorical ban on firearm
possession by any probationer, regardless of the nature of the underlying crime.6
I.C. § 35-38-2-2.3(a)(9). However, we do not decide whether such a categorical
exclusion is constitutional, as Wilder challenges only the law as applied to him.
As applied to Wilder, the law prohibits possession of firearms by a probationer
who committed a violent crime—i.e., battery.
[24] Since the probation condition burdens Wilder’s right to bear arms, we must
determine what level of scrutiny to apply to that burden.7 In making this
determination, we note that the prohibition on possession of firearms is not an
indefinite one; rather, it applies only during the term of Wilder’s probation
period, which was only 365 days. Thus, the condition is a more “modest
burden” on Wilder’s right to bear arms. Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708. And it is not a
6
Such a categorical exclusion may be permissible, as both the United States Supreme Court and the Seventh
Circuit have stated that “only law-abiding persons” enjoy individualized Second Amendment rights. Berron
v. Illinois Concealed Carry Licensing Review Bd., 825 F.3d 843, 847 (7th Cir. 2016) (citing Heller, 554 U.S. at 626-
28), cert. denied; see also Yancy, 621 F.3d at 684-85 (citations and quotation omitted) (“Whatever the pedigree
of the rule against even nonviolent felons possessing weapons (which was codified in federal law in 1938),
most scholars of the Second Amendment agree that the right to bear arms was tied to the concept of a
virtuous citizenry and that, accordingly, the government could disarm unvirtuous citizens.”).
7
Neither party to this appeal has addressed the level of scrutiny to be applied to Wilder’s Second
Amendment claim.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 14 of 21
total ban on guns that applies to even law-abiding citizens. See Moore v.
Madigan, 702 F.3d 933, 940 (7th Cir. 2012) (“[T]he state can prevail with less
evidence when, as in Skoien, guns are forbidden to a class of persons who
present a higher than average risk of misusing a gun.”). Therefore, we apply an
intermediate level of scrutiny. Ezell, 651 F.3d at 708. Intermediate scrutiny
means “the government has the burden of demonstrating that its objective is an
important one and that its objective is advanced by means substantially related
to that objective.” Williams, 616 F.3d at 692.
[25] We have already noted that the government’s objective of keeping guns out of
the hands of probationers who have been convicted of violent crimes is an
important one. So, too, is the government’s goal of rehabilitating probationers.
E.g., Carswell, 721 N.E.2d at 1258. And we hold that application of the
probation condition to Wilder is substantially related to those important goals.
Wilder was convicted of a violent crime that caused injury to another, thus
showing he has a propensity toward violence. Therefore, the State’s goals of
rehabilitating Wilder and preventing him, while on probation, from committing
additional violence through the use of a deadly weapon is substantially
furthered by the probation condition.
[26] The Seventh Circuit has reached similar conclusions in similar cases. In United
States v. Yancy, for example, the court upheld a law making it a felony for
anyone “who is an unlawful user of or addict to any controlled substance” to
possess a firearm. 621 F.3d at 682. This law applied even to those who had
never before been convicted of a felony, a crime involving a firearm, or, indeed,
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 15 of 21
any violent crime at all. The court held that, since “habitual drug users, like the
mentally ill, are more likely to have difficulty exercising self-control, making it
dangerous for them to possess deadly firearms,” the law was substantially
related to the government’s important interest in “keep[ing] guns out of the
hands of presumptively risky people.” Id. at 683-84. And, importantly, the ban
on firearm possession was not indefinite; the defendant “could regain his right
to possess a firearm simply by ending his drug abuse.” Id. at 687; see also Skoien,
614 F.3d at 642 (“The belief underpinning [the federal law prohibiting gun
possession by those convicted of domestic violence] is that people who have
been convicted of violence once—toward a spouse, child, or domestic partner,
no less—are likely to use violence again.”).
[27] The temporary curtailment of Wilder’s right to bear arms is substantially related
to the government’s important goal of keeping dangerous weapons out of the
hands of probationers who have shown a propensity for violence. Therefore,
the challenged probation condition, as applied to Wilder, does not violate the
Second Amendment.
II. Article 1, Section 32
[28] Wilder contends that the challenged probation condition, as applied to him,
also violates Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution, which states:
“The people shall have a right to bear arms, for the defense of themselves and
the State.” Claims under that provision are analyzed differently than Second
Amendment claims. As we have most recently held, we apply both a rational
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 16 of 21
basis review and a material burden analysis to such claims. Redington, 992
N.E.2d at 832-35. That is, we first apply rational basis review to a restriction on
firearms to determine if it is a valid exercise of “police power to promote health,
safety, comfort, morals, and welfare of the public.” Id. at 832 (citing Price v.
State, 622 N.E.2d 954, 959 (Ind. 1993)). If the restriction passes rational basis
review, we proceed to determine whether it “materially burdens” a “core
value.” Id. at 833.
Rational Basis Review
[29] The firearm law at issue in Redington was Indiana Code Section 35-47-14-1, et
seq., which authorized the State to seize, pursuant to a warrant, firearms of a
person who the State proved by clear and convincing evidence met the statutory
definition of “dangerous.” Id. at 830-31. We held that law was “rationally
calculated to advance” the State’s legitimate governmental purpose of
prohibiting possession of firearms by those “dangerous” persons who “present a
risk of personal injury to themselves or others.” Id. at 833. This was so even
though the defendant had never been convicted of a crime and claimed not to
have a mental illness, where the State had nevertheless proven that he was
dangerous as defined by statute. Id.
[30] Here, the challenged firearm restriction passes rational basis review for the
same reasons it passed an intermediate level of scrutiny under the federal
constitution. The State proved, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Wilder
committed a violent crime. The probation condition prohibiting him from
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 17 of 21
possessing firearms is rationally calculated to advance the legitimate
government interest in keeping firearms out of the hands of those who have
shown a propensity for violence by committing a violent crime.
Material Burden Analysis
[31] As we noted in Redington, the core value implicated by firearms restrictions is
the “right for law-abiding citizens to bear arms for self-defense.” Id. (citing Lacy
v. State, 903 N.E.2d 486, 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009), trans. denied).8 However, our
courts have recognized that the right to bear arms is not absolute. Lacy, 903
N.E.2d at 490 (citing Kellogg v. City of Gary, 562 N.E.2d 685, 694 (Ind. 1990)).
“[S]tate action does not impose a material burden on [a core value] if either the
‘magnitude of the impairment’ is slight or the [exercise of the right] threatens to
inflict ‘particularized harm’ analogous to tortious injury on readily identifiable
private interests.” Redington, 992 N.E.2d at 833 (quoting State v. Econ. Freedom
Fund, 959 N.E.2d 794, 805 (Ind. 2011)). To determine the magnitude of the
impairment, we look at whether the government action creates a “substantial
obstacle” to the exercise of the right. Id. If not, then the law does not impose a
material burden on the exercise of the right. Id. If so, we must then determine
whether the defendant’s exercise of that right would threaten to cause
“particularized harm.” Id.
8
As in federal Second Amendment jurisprudence, the “law-abiding citizen” language in Indiana case law
seems to remove probationers such as Wilder from any Article 1, Section 32 protections. Nevertheless, we
proceed to the material burden analysis.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 18 of 21
[32] Here, as in Redington, the challenged restriction does not impose a substantial
obstacle on Wilder’s right to bear arms for self-defense because the restriction is
temporary, lasting only while Wilder is serving his one-year probation. See id.
at 834 (finding no substantial obstacle on the right to bear arms when the statute
provided a mechanism for regaining the right to carry a firearm within 180
days).
[33] Moreover, again as in Redington, even if we found the magnitude of the
impairment on the right to bear arms was substantial, Wilder’s challenge would
still fail on the second component of the material burden test because his
possession of firearms during probation would threaten to inflict “particularized
harm” on others. See id. at 834-35 & n.4 (emphasis in original) (noting “we
need only find that a threat analogous to tortious injury on readily available
private interests exists regarding the ‘particularized harm’ component”). The
State proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Wilder committed the violent
crime of battery against Turpen, repeatedly banging Turpen’s head on the
ground and causing him injury. If Wilder possessed firearms, he would pose an
even greater threat of violence. See id. (finding sufficient evidence of
“particularized harm” where the state proved, by clear and convincing
evidence, that the defendant was dangerous as defined by statute).
[34] Because Indiana Code Section 35-38-2-2.3(a)(9), as applied to Wilder, has a
rational basis and does not impose a material burden on Wilder’s right to bear
arms, it does not violate Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 19 of 21
Legitimate Needs of Law Enforcement
[35] Finally, as noted above, the challenged probation condition is meant to keep
dangerous weapons out of the hands of those who—like Wilder—have shown a
propensity for violence, and that is a legitimate and important government
purpose. See, e.g., Yancy, 621 F.3d at 683-84; see also, Redington, 992 N.E.2d at
833. Moreover, as the State points out, law enforcement has a legitimate need
to protect probation officers from being shot by a violent probationer.
Probation officers often engage in home visits and searches of probationers’
homes in order to monitor and ensure compliance with the terms of probation.
I.C. § 35-38-2-2.3(a). Indeed, “probation searches ‘are necessary to the
promotion of legitimate [state] interests.’” State v. Vanderkolk, 32 N.E.3d 775,
779 (Ind. 2015) (quoting Samson v. California, 547 U.S. 843, 849 (2006)); see also,
e.g., Bonner v. State, 776 N.E.2d 1244, 1249 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002) (discussing the
ability to engage in warrantless probation searches as “an extremely valuable
aid in rehabilitation” and the supervision and monitoring of probationers as a
tool that facilitates the goals of genuine rehabilitation and protection of the
public), trans. denied.
[36] Furthermore, the probation officer/probationer relationship is one that can
become fraught with tension, as the probation officer has the power to regulate
the probationer’s behavior in ways that may be unwelcome and the power to
seek a revocation of probation that could result in incarceration. Prohibiting a
probationer from possessing firearms or residing in a home where firearms are
present allows probation officers to carry out their critical supervisory
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 20 of 21
responsibilities in greater safety, which is a legitimate and weighty state interest.
In addition, it provides protection for law enforcement officers serving arrest
warrants for probation violations, which is also an important aspect of the
supervision and monitoring necessary to a successful probation system.
Decreasing the risk that officers will encounter violent, armed probationers is a
significant and legitimate law enforcement need.
Conclusion
[37] The trial court did not commit fundamental error by failing to, sua sponte, exclude
Det. Duley’s testimony under Rule of Evidence 704(b)—even if that testimony was
an otherwise improper legal conclusion or ultimate opinion of Wilder’s guilt—
because Wilder “opened the door” to that testimony. Sampson, 38 N.E.3d at 992.
And the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it imposed the probation
condition prohibiting Wilder from possessing firearms during his one-year
probationary period, since that provision, as applied to Wilder, does not violate the
Second Amendment or Article 1, Section 32 of the Indiana Constitution.
[38] Affirmed.
Kirsch, J., and Pyle, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 49A02-1706-CR-1420 | January 9, 2018 Page 21 of 21