Arrested, not Convicted

[PistolBob]

I have a friend that is 54 years old. When he was 18 years old he was in a car with three other guys that decided to rob a gas station and two of the guys were armed. No one got shot.

They were caught almost immediately, and all were charged with felony armed robbery and some assorted misdemeanors.

At his trial it was found that he had no idea of the robbery being planned, he did not enter the establishment, he was not armed, and he cooperated fully with the investigation. Something about him being a unwilling party in the robbery...beats me on the details. He was acquitted of all charges, found not guilty, did not go to jail. Two of the guys got sent to prison the third guy was only 17, unarmed, but went into the store with the gunmen...he got several years of probation.

Since he was not convicted, and I might add the guy hasn't even had a ticket for speeding since then, is he eligible for LTCH in Indiana? The application asks if you were convicted.

Anyone?

 

[mrjarrell]

I'd think he'd be good to go in Indiana. Not sure that he wouldn't have to go before a review from the SP's, tho, if he did get denied. As long as he's honest on the app he should avoid any major pitfalls. I would imagine that that arrest is going to show up, tho and may well result in an initial denial. We've read about numerous cases here where folks have been denied and then have to go before a review to clear things up.

 

[remymartin]

No conviction, should be good to go. One way to find out.........

 

[88GT]

Threadjack: is it common to proceed with a prosecution when the evidence clearly supports "innocence?" I mean, did they have to wait until trial to determine that he was the "unwilling" party?

 

[PistolBob]

Threadjack: is it common to proceed with a prosecution when the evidence clearly supports "innocence?" I mean, did they have to wait until trial to determine that he was the "unwilling" party?

I have no idea.

 

[M67]

No conviction, no time in jail, doesn't even sound like he got an infraction.

He should be okay.

He was just in the wrong place at the wrong time.

 

[wabash]

he should ask local LE for a criminal records report. or background check.

 

[pathfinder317]

He can run a criminal report on himself online.
The application only ask about convictions if my memory is functioning correctly , it has been a long time since I have seen that application.
I think you are correct being arrested is far different than being convicted.

 

[red_zr24x4]

Years ago I was arrested for domestic violance,not going into details about it. I was arrested, spent the night in jail. When I went before the judge the next day for my bail hearing,my wife was in there with me. We explained the situation to the judge, he threw out the charges and I was free to go.
Since that time everytime I went to renew my LTCH I was asked about it. Told the cheif about details and never had a problem. This year I did the lifetime LTCH so I wont have to explain it ever again.

 

[spartan933]

I am 31, and have been arrested for Criminal Mischief and Criminal Trespass (same incident), never convicted. I have an LTCH and several firearms. Never had a problem. You have to be convicted of a crime to be disqualified, to my knowledge, and based solely on my experiences.

 

[Kick]

If it was that long ago, I would advise him to hire a lawyer and have it expunged from his record. If he was not convicted, it should not take all that much time or money. It would also eliminate this headache.

 

[IndianaGTI]

Threadjack: is it common to proceed with a prosecution when the evidence clearly supports "innocence?" I mean, did they have to wait until trial to determine that he was the "unwilling" party?

That is a kind of loaded question. EVERY get away driver and every accessory was just giving their buddy a ride and had no idea that their buddy had went in to rob the place.

Honestly, would you believe the guy that went with his buddies to a robbery and was caught with them in the get away car after the robbery? Apparently, he even admits he was with them immediately before and immediately after the robbery.

What would the lookout say? "I had no idea that they were robbing the place. I didn't have a gun. I didn't know anything about what was going on."

What exactly was this "evidence [that] clearly supports "innocence""? In this case, it sounds like the circumstantial evidence clearly supports his guilt. You also have to understand that a finding of not guilty means that there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The finding of probable cause by the judge means that the judge found that it was more likely than not that he committed the crime.

 

[PistolBob]

That is a kind of loaded question. EVERY get away driver and every accessory was just giving their buddy a ride and had no idea that their buddy had went in to rob the place.

Honestly, would you believe the guy that went with his buddies to a robbery and was caught with them in the get away car after the robbery? Apparently, he even admits he was with them immediately before and immediately after the robbery.

What would the lookout say? "I had no idea that they were robbing the place. I didn't have a gun. I didn't know anything about what was going on."

What exactly was this "evidence [that] clearly supports "innocence""? In this case, it sounds like the circumstantial evidence clearly supports his guilt. You also have to understand that a finding of not guilty means that there was not evidence beyond a reasonable doubt of his guilt. The finding of probable cause by the judge means that the judge found that it was more likely than not that he committed the crime.

Yeah but he didn't commit the crime. I guess he ought to have the case records pulled if they are anywhere to be found. This happened in Marion County sometime in the mid 1970's. I always thought a felony arrest could not be expunged...but I'm too smart to be a lawyer so how would I know.

 

[IndianaGTI]

OJ didn't commit a crime either

Yeah but he didn't commit the crime. I guess he ought to have the case records pulled if they are anywhere to be found. This happened in Marion County sometime in the mid 1970's. I always thought a felony arrest could not be expunged...but I'm too smart to be a lawyer so how would I know.

You say he didn't commit the crime? Were you there? A judge found it was more likely than not that he did based on the evidence at the time. You are confusing committing a crime with being convicted of committing a crime. All the non-guilty verdict means is that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime.

That's like saying OJ did not commit a crime when he killed his ex or her boyfriend.

Now the point of my post was to answer the guy who asked if it is common for prosecution to continue when all the evidence points to innocence. None of the evidence in this case points to innocence except the testimony of a bunch of robbers and the denials of the accused.

 

[red_zr24x4]

At his trial it was found that he had no idea of the robbery being planned, he did not enter the establishment, he was not armed, and he cooperated fully with the investigation. Something about him being a unwilling party in the robbery...beats me on the details. He was acquitted of all charges, found not guilty, did not go to jail.

Anyone?

IndianaGTI-
You say he didn't commit the crime? Were you there? A judge found it was more likely than not that he did based on the evidence at the time. You are confusing committing a crime with being convicted of committing a crime. All the non-guilty verdict means is that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime.

to use your logic IndianaGTI, do you know the Judge? Were you there in the car or gas station? on the Jury?

I'm not saying the guy did or did not commit the crime, but the question was can he get a LTCH with the evidence we have. No conviction he should be alright.

 

[Kirk Freeman]

Armed Robbery is a B felony. Let's take a gander at the statute:

Indiana Code 35-47-2-3(g)(5), in particular:

g) A license to carry a handgun shall not be issued to any person who:
(1) has been convicted of a felony;
(2) has had a license to carry a handgun suspended, unless the person's license has been reinstated;
(3) is under eighteen (18) years of age;
(4) is under twenty-three (23) years of age if the person has been adjudicated a delinquent child for an act that would be a felony if committed by an adult; or
(5) has been arrested for a Class A or Class B felony, or any other felony that was committed while armed with a deadly weapon or that involved the use of violence, if a court has found probable cause to believe that the person committed the offense charged.
In the case of an arrest under subdivision (5), a license to carry a handgun may be issued to a person who has been acquitted of the specific offense charged or if the charges for the specific offense are dismissed.

Now the point of my post was to answer the guy who asked if it is common for prosecution to continue when all the evidence points to innocence.

Depends on a bunch of different factors: politics (OWIs, domestic battery, complaining witness is wealthy or prominent member of community are more likely to to proceed to trial regardless of strength of case), prosecutor's own belief and biases, office policy, inter alia. It happens, I do not know how "common" it is.

 

[sj kahr k40]

I've been arrested a few times but never convicted and have my LTCH, he should be fine

 

[IndianaGTI]

IndianaGTI-
You say he didn't commit the crime? Were you there? A judge found it was more likely than not that he did based on the evidence at the time. You are confusing committing a crime with being convicted of committing a crime. All the non-guilty verdict means is that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime.

to use your logic IndianaGTI, do you know the Judge? Were you there in the car or gas station? on the Jury?

I'm not saying the guy did or did not commit the crime, but the question was can he get a LTCH with the evidence we have. No conviction he should be alright.

Read the entire thread before you correct me please.

I was responding to the threadjack that the poster said was a "threadjack".

He asked if prosecutors regularly pursue cases where all the evidence points to the person's "innocence". I was pointing out that this was not the case here. The evidence all pointed to the person's guilt however, there was not enough evidence to convict the individual.

 

[PistolBob]

You say he didn't commit the crime? Were you there? A judge found it was more likely than not that he did based on the evidence at the time. You are confusing committing a crime with being convicted of committing a crime. All the non-guilty verdict means is that there was not enough evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he did not commit the crime.

That's like saying OJ did not commit a crime when he killed his ex or her boyfriend.

Now the point of my post was to answer the guy who asked if it is common for prosecution to continue when all the evidence points to innocence. None of the evidence in this case points to innocence except the testimony of a bunch of robbers and the denials of the accused.

Were you there?

Oh brother.

 

[IndianaGTI]

To respond to the OP. Yes, he is likely to get a LTCH. I have no idea whether or not he was involved in the crime, however, he has proven in the last 36 years that he is a productive member of society. I do not believe that this transgression of youth whether it was running with the wrong crowd or being caught up in a robbery should affect him after 36 years of staying out of trouble.