Christopher Jerome Harris v. State of Indiana

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court held that a jury in a habitual-offender proceeding must be permitted to determine both whether the defendant has the required prior convictions and whether those convictions warrant habitual-offender status. Nevertheless, evidence is relevant only if it tends to prove or disprove the statutory prior convictions, so Harris’s testimony about the circumstances of his crimes, mental health, rehabilitation, and asserted innocence was properly excluded. The court affirmed the habitual-offender determination, summarily affirmed other portions of the decision below, and remanded for attachment of the enhancement to the robbery sentence.