Ruffin v. State of Indiana , 725 N.E.2d 412 ( 2000 )

Attorney for Appellant
Teresa D. Harper
Liell, McNeil, & Harper
Bloomington, Indiana
Attorneys for Appellee
Jeffrey A. Modisett
Attorney General of Indiana
Arthur Thaddeus Perry
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, Indiana
IN THE
INDIANA SUPREME COURT
EUGENE C. RUFFIN,
Appellant (Defendant below),
v.
STATE OF INDIANA,
Appellee (Plaintiff below).
)
) Supreme Court No.
) 49S00-9802-CR-258
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
APPEAL FROM THE MARION SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Jane Magnus-Stinson, Judge
Cause No. 49G06-9601-CF-006417
ON DIRECT APPEAL
March 28, 2000
SULLIVAN, Justice.
Defendant Eugene Ruffin was convicted of felony murder and reckless
homicide for shooting a man to death. Defendant argues that (1) the
evidence was insufficient to support his felony murder conviction and (2)
it was improper to impose judgments and sentences for both felony murder
and reckless homicide. We find the evidence sufficient, but agree that
convictions of both felony murder and reckless homicide for killing the
same person cannot stand.
We have jurisdiction over this direct appeal because the longest
single sentence exceeds 50 years. Ind. Const. art. VII, ' 4; Ind.
Appellate Rule 4(A)(7).
Background
The facts most favorable to the verdict reveal that on December 18,
1995, Defendant,[1] Eugene C. Ruffin, wearing a Chicago Bulls jacket and a
pullover shirt with a hood, went to Chad Taylor=s house and borrowed a
shotgun from him. The victim, Emberson, owed Defendant $140.00, and
Defendant told Taylor that he wanted the shotgun so he could collect his
money.
Later that same evening, Michael Harris was walking down an alley and
noticed Defendant, wearing a hooded sweatshirt, standing next to Emberson=s
truck, and talking to Emberson who was sitting in the driver=s seat.
Defendant then walked around the truck, got into the passenger=s side, and
the truck began to move. As Harris continued to walk down the alley toward
a phone booth, he heard a Aloud pop sound@ from the direction of the truck.
He turned around to see that the truck had stopped moving.
Annie Burns, who lived nearby, also heard a sound she described as a
Ashot.@ Burns looked out her window after hearing the noise and saw
Emberson=s truck in the alley. She also saw someone wearing a hood over
his head running from the direction of the truck. At approximately the
same time, David Whiteside, Annie Burns=s son and a friend of Emberson=s,
went outside, saw Emberson=s truck, saw someone wearing a sports jacket and
hood running from the truck, and walked over to the truck to see what was
happening. When Whiteside realized that Emberson was injured, he ran back
to the house and told his mother to call the police. Emberson died of a
single close range gunshot wound to the head.
Defendant returned to Chad Taylor=s house the same evening. Taylor
testified that Defendant looked Ashocked, dazed@ and had blood on the left
side of his head, hands, Chicago Bulls jacket, and pants. Defendant told
Taylor and Larry Baugh, Taylor=s housemate, that he saw Emberson,
confronted him, and got into an argument with him during which Defendant
pulled the gun out. Defendant and Emberson fought over the gun and it went
off, shooting Emberson. Later in the week, police came to Taylor=s house
with a search warrant and found a shotgun shell and a Chicago Bulls jacket
covered with blood consistent with Emberson=s. As part of a different
search, the police also seized from Defendant a plaid jacket which had
blood on it consistent with Emberson=s.
Defendant was charged with Murder,[2] Felony Murder,[3] and Conspiracy
to Commit Robbery,[4] a Class B felony. The trial court granted
Defendant=s Motion for Judgment on the Evidence as to the Conspiracy to
Commit Robbery count. The jury convicted Defendant of Reckless
Homicide,[5] a lesser included offense of Count I, Murder, and Felony
Murder as charged in Count II. The trial court sentenced Defendant to a 60-
year imprisonment for his felony murder conviction and an eight-year
imprisonment for his reckless homicide conviction C the reckless homicide
sentence to be served concurrent to the felony murder sentence.
Additional facts will be provided as necessary.
Discussion
I
Defendant asserts that the evidence presented at trial was
insufficient to establish the requisite element of intent to commit robbery
C the underlying offense for Defendant=s felony murder charge.[6] We
neither reweigh the evidence nor assess the credibility of witnesses when
reviewing a sufficiency of the evidence claim. Thornton v. State, 712
N.E.2d 960, 961 (Ind. 1999); Hurst v. State, 699 N.E.2d 651, 654 (Ind.
1998); Roach v. State, 695 N.E.2d 934, 941 (Ind. 1998), reh=g denied. We
only consider the evidence favorable to the jury=s verdict, draw all
reasonable inferences therefrom, and will affirm a conviction if the
probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could
have led the jury to find a defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Love v. State, 721 N.E.2d 1244, 1245 (Ind. 1999).
The evidence shows that Defendant told Taylor that he wanted the
shotgun in order to collect money from someone who owed him a debt. After
Emberson had been killed, Defendant told Taylor and Baugh that he
confronted the person who owed him money and pulled the gun out when
Defendant and that person began to argue. Baugh specifically stated that
Defendant claimed to have killed the man for money. In addition, when
police examined Emberson=s body and the crime scene, the upper left breast
pocket of Emberson=s shirt appeared to have been pulled open and down.
From this evidence, the jury could reasonably infer that Defendant killed
Emberson while attempting to take money from him and searched Emberson
before or after he killed him in order to find some money.
Defendant also claims that he merely intended to collect a debt from
Emberson and did not intend to commit robbery as is required by the
statute. Appellant=s Br. at 7-8. However, the Alaw does not sanction the
use of self-help with firearms as a debt collection device.@ Sheckles v.
State, 501 N.E.2d 1053, 1055 (Ind. 1996). Defendant=s attempt to collect a
debt by force does not negate the criminal intent element of robbery. See
id. The evidence was ample to support the jury=s verdict that Defendant
was guilty of felony murder.
II
Defendant argues that it was improper for the trial court to enter
judgment and impose sentence for both felony murder and reckless homicide.
We agree.
It is well-settled that a Adefendant may not be convicted of both
>knowing or intentional= murder and felony murder for the killing of the
same person.@ Garrett v. State, 714 N.E.2d 618, 621 (Ind. 1999) (citing
Hicks v. State, 544 N.E.2d 500, 505 (Ind. 1989); Sandlin v. State, 461
N.E.2d 1116, 1119 (Ind. 1984)). For the same reason C that Athis case
involves the homicide of only one person,@ Sandlin, 461 N.E.2d at 1119
(citing James v. State, 274 Ind. 304, 305, 411 N.E.2d 618, 617 (1980)) C
Defendant may not be convicted of both felony murder and reckless homicide
for killing the same person.
When judgment of conviction cannot legally be entered on all counts
upon which guilty verdicts have been returned, judgment is entered on one
count and the remaining convictions are vacated. Defendant argues that we
should vacate his felony murder conviction because it was the last entered,
citing Clifft v. Indiana Dep’t of State Revenue, 660 N.E.2d 310 (Ind.
1995). In Clifft, the Department of State Revenue assessed a controlled
substance excise tax against the defendant. See id. at 313. The defendant
was later convicted of criminal drug possession for the same drug offense.
See id. We held that the criminal conviction constituted a second jeopardy
for the same drug offense and must therefore be vacated. See id. In
Clifft, the tax penalty and criminal prosecution were separate proceedings,
pursued at different times. Here, however, Defendant=s convictions for
felony murder and reckless homicide resulted from charges prosecuted
simultaneously in a single trial. Under such circumstances, there is no
impediment to vacating either conviction.
Conclusion
We affirm Defendant=s conviction and 60-year sentence for felony
murder and vacate Defendant=s conviction and sentence for reckless
homicide.
SHEPARD, C.J, and BOEHM, and RUCKER, JJ., concur.
DICKSON, J., concurs in result.
-----------------------
[1] Several entries in the record refer to Defendant by his nickname,
ASqueaky.@
[2] Ind. Code ' 35-42-1-1(1) (1993).
[3] Id. ' 35-42-1-1(2).
[4] Id. '' 35-41-5-2 & 35-42-5-1.
[5] Id. ' 35-42-1-5.
[6] The jury instruction for Defendant=s felony murder charge read in
part:
To convict the defendant the State must have proven each of the
following elements:
The defendant, Eugene C. Ruffin;
1. killed,
2. another human being, namely: John Emberson,
3. while committing or attempting to commit robbery which is
to knowingly, while armed with a deadly weapon, that is: a
shotgun, take from the person or presence of John Emberson
property, that is: United States Currency, by putting John
Emberson in fear or by using or threatening the use of
force on John Emberson.