Beck v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Beck v. State

382 N.E.2d 164, 269 Ind. 576, 1978 Ind. LEXIS 852

CourtIndiana Supreme Court

DecidedNovember 14, 1978

Docket278S26

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 382 N.E.2d 164 (Beck v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Indiana Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Beck v. State, 382 N.E.2d 164, 269 Ind. 576, 1978 Ind. LEXIS 852 (Ind. 1978).

Pincite

Opinion

Hunter, J.

— The petitioner, Gilbert Beck, III, is before this Court appealing from the denial of his petition for relief under Post-Conviction Remedy, Rule 1. His conviction for armed robbery was affirmed by this Court on direct appeal, Beck v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 616, 308 N.E.2d 697. One issue is presented: was it proper for the jury to render a verdict of guilty for armed robbery while rendering no verdict upon the lesser charge of robbery, each charge appearing in the same affidavit under separate counts ?

The problem may be summarized as follows. When the jury returned from deliberation, only one verdict, on armed robbery, was .filled in. The trial judge retired to his chambers for a few minutes to research, and then he came back to the courtroom and accepted the verdict. The petitioner argues that because no verdict was returned on the robbery charge that was the equivalent of a verdict of not guilty on the robbery charge. Then, the petitioner reasons, if he has been found guilty of robbery, how could the verdict on armed robbery be accepted ?

The syllogism fails in its major premise: the absence of a verdict on the lesser included offense did not signify an acquittal on that charge. To the contrary, the guilty verdict on. the greater charge obviated the necessity for any verdict on the lesser, charge. This Court has often held that when the jury does'return guilty verdicts on both the greater and lesser offenses, when the counts stemmed from the same criminal act, the verdict on the lesser offense must be disregarded as superfluous. Judgment should be entered only upon the *578 greater offense. Webb v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 101, 284 N.E.2d 812; Carter v. State, (1951), 229 Ind. 205, 96 N.E.2d 273. The double jeopardy clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. For purposes of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, a lesser included offense requires no proof beyond that which is required for conviction of the greater offense, and the greater offense is therefore by definition the “same” for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it. Brown v. Ohio, (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187. In this case, the charges stemmed from the same criminal act.

For all the foregoing reasons, there was no trial court error, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Givan, C.J., DeBruler, Prentice and Pivarnik, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported at 382 N.E.2d 164.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Hunter, J.

— The petitioner, Gilbert Beck, III, is before this Court appealing from the denial of his petition for relief under Post-Conviction Remedy, Rule 1. His conviction for armed robbery was affirmed by this Court on direct appeal, Beck v. State, (1974) 261 Ind. 616, 308 N.E.2d 697. One issue is presented: was it proper for the jury to render a verdict of guilty for armed robbery while rendering no verdict upon the lesser charge of robbery, each charge appearing in the same affidavit under separate counts ?

The problem may be summarized as follows. When the jury returned from deliberation, only one verdict, on armed robbery, was .filled in. The trial judge retired to his chambers for a few minutes to research, and then he came back to the courtroom and accepted the verdict. The petitioner argues that because no verdict was returned on the robbery charge that was the equivalent of a verdict of not guilty on the robbery charge. Then, the petitioner reasons, if he has been found guilty of robbery, how could the verdict on armed robbery be accepted ?

The syllogism fails in its major premise: the absence of a verdict on the lesser included offense did not signify an acquittal on that charge. To the contrary, the guilty verdict on. the greater charge obviated the necessity for any verdict on the lesser, charge. This Court has often held that when the jury does'return guilty verdicts on both the greater and lesser offenses, when the counts stemmed from the same criminal act, the verdict on the lesser offense must be disregarded as superfluous. Judgment should be entered only upon the *578 greater offense. Webb v. State, (1972) 259 Ind. 101, 284 N.E.2d 812; Carter v. State, (1951), 229 Ind. 205, 96 N.E.2d 273. The double jeopardy clause prohibits the imposition of multiple punishments for the same offense. For purposes of the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment, a lesser included offense requires no proof beyond that which is required for conviction of the greater offense, and the greater offense is therefore by definition the “same” for purposes of double jeopardy as any lesser offense included in it. Brown v. Ohio, (1977) 432 U.S. 161, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187. In this case, the charges stemmed from the same criminal act.

For all the foregoing reasons, there was no trial court error, and the judgment of the trial court should be affirmed.

Judgment affirmed.

Givan, C.J., DeBruler, Prentice and Pivarnik, JJ., concur.

Note. — Reported at 382 N.E.2d 164.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

382 N.E.2d 164, 269 Ind. 576, 1978 Ind. LEXIS 852, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/beck-v-state-ind-1978.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack