Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

704 N.E.2d 113

Landis v. State

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided December 29, 1998

Indiana Supreme Court · decided 1998-12-29

Key passage — most relied on by later courts

“evidence of any former convictions should be admitted only in the 'sentencing hearing.’ ” Id. (Emphasis in original). 3 . We note that effective July 1, 2006, our legislature changed the domestic battery statute to include, in addition to convictions under the domestic battery statute, domestic batteiy convictions that are entered in other jurisdictions. I.C. § 35-42-2-1.3. However, the language”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Holeton v. State

“the crime of stalking by its nature necessitates proof of repeated or continuing acts”

quoted by 1 later decision, including Doe v. City of Lafayette

Applies IN 35 § 35-45-10-5

Relies on Landis v. State

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Decided 1998-12-29

How this case has been cited

Cited by 9 later decisions — most recently April 2011

4 federal appellate · 5 state decisions

70199820002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

¶1 The Court of Appeals correctly held in this prosecution for stalking, Ind.Code § 35-45-10-5(c), that when the State seeks an enhanced penalty based on a prior conviction for stalking, a defendant is entitled to a bifurcated proceeding in which the proof of the prior conviction is submitted to the jury only after it has rendered a guilty verdict on the present offense. Landis v. State, 693 N.E.2d 570 (Ind.Ct.App.1998).

¶2 The Attorney General seeks transfer, arguing that the crime of stalking by its nature necessitates proof of repeated or continuing acts. He contends that the prior acts and the conviction should thus be admissible in the State’s case-in-chief. We grant transfer.

¶3 We-conclude that the State may present evidence of prior acts that are probative of the crime of stalking (to the extent consistent with the Indiana Rules of Evidence and any other applicable law) but that evidence of any former convictions should be admitted only in the “sentencing hearing” contemplated by Ind.Code § 35-38-l-2(c).

¶4 With this exception, we summarily affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals. Ind.Appellate Rule 11(B)(3).

DICKSON, SULLIVAN, SELBY and BOEHM, JJ., concur.
/704/ne2d/113 · .json · Public domain