Attorneys for Appellant
Attorney General of Indiana
Stephen R. Creason
Deputy Attorney General
Attorneys for Appellee
Appellant (Plaintiff below),Supreme Court case no. 49S00-0110-DP-461
CHARLES E. BARKER,
Appellee (Defendant below ). ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )
Appellant, the State of Indiana, brings this interlocutory appeal from a trial court
order declaring that Indianas death penalty statute, Indiana Code § 35-50-2-9, is unconstitutional
in light of Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466 (2000).
We elected to accept jurisdiction and granted transfer pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rule
For the reasons explained more fully in Saylor v. State, ___
N.E.2d ___ (Ind. 2002), we reverse the trial court.
Barker stands convicted, by jury, of two murders, kidnapping, confinement, burglary, and carrying
a handgun without a license. At the completion of the penalty phase
of the trial, the jury recommended the death penalty be imposed. The
trial court followed the jury's recommendation and imposed a death sentence. The
convictions were affirmed on direct appeal, but the death sentence was reversed because
the jury had not been instructed that life without parole was a possible
Barker v. State, 695 N.E.2d 925, 934 (Ind. 1998). The
case was remanded for a new penalty phase proceeding. Id.
Before the new penalty phase was scheduled to begin, the United States Supreme Court decided Apprendi v. New Jersey, 530 U.S. 466. Barker moved to dismiss the death penalty request. He argued that Indianas death penalty statute was unconstitutional in light of Apprendi because the statute allowed a person to be sentenced to death in instances where a jury did not find that the State had proved an aggravating circumstance that rendered a defendant eligible for the death penalty beyond a reasonable doubt. See footnote The trial court agreed that this component of the statute rendered it unconstitutional after Apprendi, and granted Barkers motion to dismiss the death penalty request.
We addressed the effect of
Apprendi in Saylor, and concluded that Indianas death
penalty statute remains constitutional. ___ N.E.2d at ___. Accordingly, the
trial courts order declaring Indianas death penalty scheme unconstitutional is reversed. This
case is remanded for a new penalty phase as we previously directed in
Barker v. State, 695 N.E.2d at 934.
Shepard, C.J., Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.