## Facts

- David S. Gravens entered a Fifth Third Bank in Decatur, Indiana, and approached teller Amber Whitman.
- Gravens slid a note across the counter stating, “Give me money from 2 TELLERS,” with additional writing that Whitman could not read.
- Whitman became nervous, turned the note around, raised her voice, and asked Gravens to tell her what he wanted.
- Gravens became flustered, held up two fingers, retrieved the note, mumbled, and walked out without obtaining money.
- The State charged Gravens with attempted robbery (Class C felony) and sought a habitual-offender enhancement.
- Gravens noticed an affirmative defense of abandonment and requested the pattern abandonment instruction; the State objected and tendered a modified instruction adding that abandonment must originate with the defendant and not be motivated by extrinsic circumstances.
- The trial court gave the State’s modified abandonment instruction as both a preliminary and final instruction.
- A jury convicted Gravens of attempted robbery; Gravens then pled guilty to habitual-offender status and received a twelve-year sentence (four years plus an eight-year enhancement).

## Issues

1. Whether the trial court erred by refusing the pattern abandonment instruction and giving the State’s modified instruction requiring that abandonment originate with the defendant and not be motivated by extrinsic circumstances.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient for the jury to find that Gravens did not voluntarily abandon the attempted robbery.

## Decision

- The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction.
- The court held the modified abandonment instruction correctly stated Indiana law, was needed to inform the jury of the defense’s limits, and did not improperly emphasize particular evidence or state an appellate review standard.
- The court held sufficient evidence supported rejection of abandonment because the jury could infer Gravens left due to the teller’s reaction increasing detection risk and making the crime harder to complete.

## Legal Principles

- Criminal attempt liability may be avoided by abandonment only when the defendant voluntarily and completely renounces the criminal purpose before completion.
- Abandonment is not “voluntary” if motivated, in whole or part, by extrinsic circumstances that increase the probability of detection or apprehension or that make the crime more difficult to accomplish.
- Pattern jury instructions are nonbinding; a trial court may modify or supplement them with case-law language when necessary to fully and accurately state the law applicable to the facts, so long as the instruction remains neutral and does not single out specific evidence.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Gravens’s attempted-robbery conviction, holding that the jury was properly instructed that abandonment must be internally motivated and that the evidence permitted a finding that Gravens stopped because external circumstances—specifically the teller’s reaction—heightened detection risk and impeded completion of the offense.


Gravens v. State, 836 N.E.2d 490 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005)