#Download the original WordPerfect Document here


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



IN THE

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       ).    )


APPEAL FROM THE PORTER SUPERIOR COURT
The Honorable Roger V. Bradford, Judge
Cause No. 64D01-9608-CF-84



December 29, 1998

SHEPARD, Chief Justice.

    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 transfer.

    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