ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE
Paul D. Stanko Jeffrey A. Modisett
Crown Point, Indiana Attorney General of Indiana
Andrew L. Hedges
Deputy Attorney General
Indianapolis, IN 46204
SUPREME COURT OF INDIANA
DILLARD LEE LANDIS, ) ) Appellant (Defendant Below ), ) 64S04-9812-CR-776 ) in the Supreme Court v. ) ) 64A04-9710-CR-438 STATE OF INDIANA, ) in the Court of Appeals ) Appellee (Plaintiff Below ). )
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).
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
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 § 35-38-1-2(c).
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.
Converted from WP6.1 by the Access Indiana Information Network