FILED
Jul 17 2019, 8:46 am
CLERK
Indiana Supreme Court
Court of Appeals
and Tax Court
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Cara Schaefer Wieneke Curtis T. Hill, Jr.
Wieneke Law Office, LLC Attorney General of Indiana
Brooklyn, Indiana Josiah Swinney
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
COURT OF APPEALS OF INDIANA
Jesse L. Smith, July 17, 2019
Appellant-Defendant, Court of Appeals Case No.
18A-CR-2597
v. Appeal from the Vigo Superior
Court
State of Indiana, The Honorable Sarah K. Mullican,
Appellee-Plaintiff Judge
Trial Court Cause No.
84D03-1803-F3-929
Pyle, Judge.
Statement of the Case
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 1 of 7
[1] Jesse Smith (“Smith”) appeals his conviction for Level 6 felony criminal
recklessness,1 claiming that his convictions for Level 3 felony attempted
aggravated battery and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness violate Indiana’s
Double Jeopardy Clause. Concluding that the actual evidence presented at trial
supports separate convictions, we affirm Smith’s conviction.
[2] We affirm.
Issue
Whether Smith’s convictions violate Indiana’s double jeopardy
prohibition.
Facts
[3] Smith and Orville Johnson (“Johnson”) were both dating Smith’s brother’s
estranged wife Roxanne Smith (“Roxanne”). On the night of March 16, 2018,
Johnson and Smith planned to meet up and fight each other at a local Family
Video store in Terre Haute. However, the two mistakenly traveled to different
Family Video store locations. When they spoke on the phone trying to figure
out where the other one was, Johnson called off the fight and told Smith that he
was going to a McDonald’s restaurant instead to get something to eat.
[4] Johnson then went to a nearby McDonald’s with some friends, including Jlee
Betz (“Betz”). While at the McDonald’s, Johnson spoke to Smith on the phone
again, and the two men started arguing. Smith soon arrived at the McDonald’s
accompanied by Roxanne.
1
IND. CODE § 35-42-2-2(B)(1).
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 2 of 7
[5] Once Johnson and his friends realized that Smith had come to the McDonald’s,
they stepped outside to confront him. By this time, Smith and Roxanne had
entered the McDonald’s drive-thru line. Johnson and his friends waited for
Smith to finish at the drive-thru window, and then Betz walked up to Smith’s
truck. Smith pointed a gun at him and told him not to come any closer. As
Betz turned around and retreated to the curb, he heard a gunshot and the squeal
of Smith’s vehicle tires behind him. Johnson heard Smith fire multiple
gunshots.
[6] Betz then turned back around to face Smith’s truck. Betz pulled out his gun
and fired twice at Smith. Smith sped his truck out of the parking lot onto
Lafayette Street, drove away from the restaurant, and then made a U-turn so
that he could return to the scene. Smith drove back by the McDonald’s, aimed
toward the building and fired his gun multiple times, shattering one of the
McDonald’s windows. As this happened, Betz tried to protect bystanders both
in and out of the restaurant, urging them to lie on the ground. When police
arrived at the scene, Betz provided his weapon to them.
[7] The next morning, police found Smith hiding in the basement of Roxanne’s
friend’s house. The State subsequently charged Smith with one count of Level
3 felony attempted aggravated battery, Level 5 felony carrying a handgun
without a license, Level 6 criminal recklessness, Level 6 felony operating a
vehicle as a habitual traffic violator, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a
handgun without a license.
[8] In August 2018, the trial court held a three-day jury trial. During closing
arguments, the prosecuting attorney brought up both shooting incidents – the
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 3 of 7
shots Smith fired at Betz in the parking lot and the shots Smith fired at the
McDonald’s building while driving on Lafayette Street – when discussing the
criminal recklessness charge. (See Tr. Vol. 3 at 115 (“Now, Criminal
Recklessness, he actually committed twice. You can find the Criminal
Recklessness in that he … fired at [Betz]”); Tr. Vol 3 at 116 (“The other
Criminal Recklessness is when he was out on . . . Lafayette and fired back again
at the . . . building, or at the people . . . there at the building.”)).
[9] Regarding the aggravated battery charge, the prosecutor argued that Smith went
to the McDonald’s upset and looking for trouble and directed that anger at
Betz. The prosecutor mentioned the shots that Smith fired while Betz’s back
was turned as well as Smith’s attempt to strike Betz with his truck. (See Tr. Vol
3 at 117 (“[Smith] also said … that he drove up on the curb and tried to hit
[Betz] with the car. So, this is a guy that is clearly attempting aggravated
battery.”)). In his closing rebuttal argument, the prosecutor again discussed the
shots that Smith fired at Betz while the two were in the McDonald’s parking
lot.
[10] The jury subsequently found Smith guilty on all counts. Smith now appeals.
Decision
[11] On appeal, Smith argues that his convictions for Level 3 felony attempted
aggravated battery and Level 6 felony criminal recklessness violate Indiana’s
Double Jeopardy Clause. For the reasons below, we affirm Smith’s
convictions.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 4 of 7
[12] Article 1, Section 14 of the Indiana Constitution provides that “[n]o person
shall be put in jeopardy twice for the same offense.” Two offenses are the same
offense for double jeopardy purposes if, “with respect to either the statutory
elements of the challenged crimes or the actual evidence used to convict, the
essential elements of one challenged offense also establish the essential elements
of another challenged offense.” Richardson v. State, 717 N.E.2d 32, 49 (Ind.
1999) (emphasis omitted). Under the actual evidence test, “the actual evidence
presented at trial is examined to determine whether each challenged offense
was established by separate and distinct facts.” Id. at 53. To find a double
jeopardy violation under this test, we must conclude that there is “a reasonable
possibility that the evidentiary facts used by the fact-finder to establish the
essential elements of one offense may also have been used to establish the
essential elements of a second challenged offense.” Id.
[13] A “reasonable possibility” requires substantially more than a logical possibility,
and “turns on a practical assessment of whether the [fact-finder] may have
latched on to exactly the same facts for both convictions.” Garrett v. State, 992
N.E.2d 710, 719–20 (Ind. 2013). “We evaluate the evidence from the [fact
finder's] perspective and may consider the charging information, jury
instructions, and arguments of counsel.” Id. at 720. Whether multiple
convictions violate double jeopardy is a question of law, which this Court
reviews de novo. Black v. State, 79 N.E.3d 965, 975 (Ind. Ct. App. 2017).
[14] Under INDIANA CODE § 35-42-2-1.5, a person commits aggravated battery
when he “knowingly or intentionally inflicts injury on a person that creates a
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 5 of 7
substantial risk of death[.]” INDIANA CODE § 35-41-5-1 makes it a crime to
attempt to commit aggravated battery. Under INDIANA CODE § 35-42-2-2(a), a
person commits criminal recklessness if he “recklessly, knowingly, or
intentionally performs an act that creates a substantial risk of bodily injury to
another person.” The offense is “a Level 6 felony if … it is committed while
armed with a deadly weapon.” I. C. § 35-42-2-2(b)(1).
[15] Here, Smith argues that although attempted aggravated battery and criminal
recklessness do not share identical statutory elements, the actual evidence
presented at trial does not support separate offenses. We disagree.
[16] Separate and distinct facts support Smith’s convictions for attempted
aggravated battery and criminal recklessness, namely the two separate incidents
of shooting. In its closing arguments, the State cited only the aggression Smith
showed toward Betz as evidence of attempted aggravated battery,2 specifically
highlighting the parking lot shooting (not the Lafayette Street shooting). By
contrast, when discussing the criminal recklessness charges, the State pointed
additionally to the Lafayette Street shooting and the recklessness Smith
exhibited toward bystanders by firing at the McDonald’s building itself and
shattering a window. For that reason, we cannot conclude, in our assessment
of the evidence, that the jury “latched on to exactly the same facts for both
2
In his brief, Smith makes much of the State’s charging information for attempted aggravated battery,
specifically the absence of allegations that Smith tried to strike Betz with his truck. Because we find that
other separate and distinct evidence supports the attempted aggravated battery conviction, we need not
address this argument.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 6 of 7
convictions.” See Garrett, 992 N.E.2d at 719–20. Thus, there was not a
reasonable possibility that the jury used the same evidentiary facts when finding
Smith guilty of both offenses. Accordingly, we affirm the convictions.
[17] Affirmed.
Riley, J., and Bailey, J., concur.
Court of Appeals of Indiana | Opinion 18A-CR-2597 | July 17, 2019 Page 7 of 7