Oasia Lee Barnes, Appellant-Defendant v. State of Indiana, Appellee-Plaintiff (2026)

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Case Summary

[1] While on a road trip to visit various universities, I.T. and her father, A.T., decided to visit Michael Jackson's childhood home in Gary. While stopped at the home, they encountered Oasia Barnes, who kidnapped them. During their encounter with Barnes, I.T. was continuously held at gunpoint and sexually assaulted, while A.T. was held at gunpoint and threatened. The State charged Barnes with seventeen charges and, following a jury trial, the trial court entered judgments of conviction on the following: Level 1 felony rape, two counts of Level 2 felony kidnapping, two counts of Level 2 felony criminal confinement, Level 3 felony armed robbery, Level 4 felony sexual battery, two counts of Level 5 felony intimidation, and two counts of Level 6 felony pointing a firearm. After the parties stipulated that Barnes's sentence should be enhanced by a repeat-sexual-offender enhancement and a firearm enhancement, the trial court sentenced Barnes to an aggregate 164-year sentence.

[2] Barnes contends on appeal that his convictions for Level 2 felony criminal confinement violated Indiana's prohibitions against substantive double jeopardy. The State concedes that Barnes's criminal-confinement conviction relating to I.T. violates the prohibitions against double jeopardy but claims that his conviction relating to A.T. does not. Concluding that Barnes's convictions for the criminal confinement of both I.T. and A.T. violate the prohibitions against double jeopardy, we reverse in part and remand to the trial court with instructions to vacate Barnes's criminal-confinement convictions and to resentence Barnes to a term of 129 years.

Facts and Procedural History

[3] In August 2024, A.T. and his then-sixteen-year-old daughter, I.T., rented a vehicle and traveled from Brooklyn, New York on a road trip to visit various universities. A.T. and I.T. had visited Purdue University before driving to the greater-Chicago area to visit the University of Chicago and Northwestern University. On the morning of August 9, 2024, A.T. and I.T. drove toward South Bend, for a visit to Notre Dame University.

[4] On the way to South Bend, A.T. and I.T. decided to stop in Gary to visit the childhood home of Michael Jackson.¹ A.T. parked their rental car across the street, and he and I.T. walked up to the home. When I.T. and A.T. arrived, several people were taking photographs of the home. Barnes approached A.T. and said, “[d]on't forget your glove[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 211 (internal quotation marks omitted). A.T. laughed, and he and I.T. walked toward the home and took photographs.

[5] Around 12:30 p.m., as A.T. finished taking photographs and turned to leave, he noticed that Barnes was standing behind I.T. with a gun pressed into her ribs and she was shaking. Barnes said, “[g]ive me your money or I'll shoot this b[****.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 220 (internal quotation marks omitted). A.T. gave Barnes the $200.00 in cash that he had. Barnes then instructed A.T. to get his car. A.T., “thinking it's a robbery[,]” pleaded with Barnes to “[j]ust take the money[ ]” and leave. Tr. Vol. II p. 223 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes did not leave and forced A.T. to give his cell phone to I.T. before again instructing A.T. to get the car. As he was walking to the car, A.T. spotted a family he believed to be Hispanic and told them Spanish, “[h]e has a gun. Call the cops.”² Tr. Vol. II p. 224 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[6] While holding his gun to I.T.’s “waist area on [her] left side[,]” Barnes stood on the sidewalk with I.T. and instructed her “to touch his d[***.]” Tr. Vol. III pp. 42, 41. Barnes asked I.T. which of her hands was dominant before grabbing her dominant hand and forcing her to touch his penis. I.T. “did not” want to touch Barnes's penis. Tr. Vol. III p. 42. Barnes also forced I.T. to repeat “I want this N-word d[***]” while touching his penis. Tr. Vol. III p. 41 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[7] A.T. walked back to the rental car and immediately drove to the spot where Barnes was holding I.T. at gunpoint. A.T. attempted to hand Barnes the car keys and stated “[h]ere's the keys. You wanted the car. Go.” Tr. Vol. II p. 225 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes responded, “[n]o, I need a ride. You're going to drive.” Tr. Vol. II p. 225 (internal quotation marks omitted). A.T. begged Barnes to take the car and leave but Barnes threatened to “shoot this b[****]” if A.T. did not drive him. Tr. Vol. II p. 225 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes forced I.T. into the back seat with him and onto his lap. While he and I.T. were in the backseat together, Barnes's gun was “still in his hand” and Barnes gave A.T. “directions to drive. He gives, like, zigzag, left, right directions to go through this dilapidated, abandoned neighborhood area[.]” Tr. Vol. III p. 42. A.T. pleaded with Barnes to stay calm. Barnes instructed A.T. “[d]on't drive fast. Don't bring attention to yourself. Drive slow[.]” Tr. Vol. II p. 227 (internal quotation marks omitted). While giving A.T. directions, Barnes was “touching [I.T.’s] breasts underneath [her] shirt, underneath the bra.” Tr. Vol. III p. 43.

[8] Eventually, Barnes instructed A.T. to stop in an alleyway surrounded by dilapidated buildings. Barnes exited the vehicle and forced I.T. to exit with him, telling A.T., “I'm going to borrow your b[****].” Tr. Vol. III p. 45 (internal quotation marks omitted). A.T. begged Barnes “[n]o. please no” and I.T. “could see the fear in [A.T.’s] eyes.” Tr. Vol. III p. 45 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes told A.T. to “[s]tay in the f[***]ing car.” Tr. Vol. III p. 2 (internal quotation marks omitted). A.T. attempted to exit the vehicle to follow Barnes and I.T., and Barnes, still holding I.T. at gunpoint, reiterated his command for A.T. to stay in the car.

[9] Barnes took I.T. behind a nearby dilapidated building. He forced I.T. to kiss him and told her just “to stick [her] tongue in his mouth.” Tr. Vol. III p. 48. Barnes also stuck his tongue in I.T.’s mouth, causing I.T. to notice that “he had a very strong scent of cigarettes.” Tr. Vol. III p. 48. Barnes then instructed I.T. to “take out his penis” and “suck his d[***].” Tr. Vol. III p. 49. I.T. was shaking and “didn't know what to do because [she had] never been with a guy.” Tr. Vol. III p. 49. Barnes “end[ed] up taking his penis out himself” and I.T. got on her knees. Tr. Vol. III p. 49. Barnes then “put his penis in [I.T.’s] mouth, and also he grabbed onto [her] head with both hands ․ to, like, push [her] forward and back.” Tr. Vol. III p. 49. “It was horrifying” and “disgusting” and I.T. “kept choking” and “gagging[.]” Tr. Vol. III p. 49. When Barnes was finished and had “some droplets” coming out of his penis, Barnes “put[ ] his penis back into his pants[ ]” and zipped them up. Tr. Vol. III pp. 50, 51.

[10] Barnes and I.T. then “ma[d]e their way back to the vehicle” long enough for Barnes to ask A.T. whether I.T. was a virgin. Tr. Vol. III p. 4. A.T. responded, “[y]es. Please -- yes, she's a virgin. Please just let her go. Please.” Tr. Vol. III p. 5 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes responded, “I won't do her like that. I'm going to let her masturbate me.” Tr. Vol. III p. 5 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[11] Barnes took I.T. to a dilapidated garage. A.T. exited the vehicle and followed. As A.T. pleaded with Barnes, Barnes continued to hold I.T. at gunpoint and told A.T., “I'm going to shoot this b[****].” Tr. Vol. III p. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes told I.T. that if her father loved her, he would stay in the car. I.T. pleaded with A.T. to “[p]lease just stay in the car.” Tr. Vol. III p. 52 (internal quotation marks omitted). A.T. started to walk toward the vehicle but turned around and walked back to the garage. Barnes walked toward A.T. with the gun saying, “I'm going to shoot you and shoot her.” Tr. Vol. III p. 7 (internal quotation marks omitted). Eventually, A.T. followed Barnes's instructions and returned to the car. Barnes grabbed I.T. by the hair and forced her to leave with him.

[12] When A.T. returned to the vehicle, he pressed the SOS button in an attempt to contact help. He returned to the garage but Barnes and I.T. were gone. He entered the neighboring house, but they were not inside. A.T. exited the house and observed a car driving down a nearby street. As A.T. was running toward the car, he saw “a woman drive up to a home.” Tr. Vol. III p. 11. A.T. ran up to her screaming and yelling for help. The woman called 911 and gave her phone to A.T. to speak with the dispatcher. Officers arrived on scene with canines and drones.

[13] Meanwhile, Barnes, holding I.T. with a tight grip on her hair, led her through empty lots and abandoned houses. When they reached a more populated area, Barnes instructed I.T. to hold his hand and pretend that she was his girlfriend. After briefly conversing with a woman who Barnes had indicated was a prostitute and a man who Barnes had indicated was a pimp, Barnes led I.T. to a stairwell behind a house and told her that he “now just wants alone time with” her. Tr. Vol. III p. 59. Barnes sat on the stairs, forced I.T. onto his lap, and kissed her. After I.T. asked when he was going to take her back to her father, Barnes responded that he “should keep you as long as I want[.]” Tr. Vol. III p. 60 (internal quotation marks omitted). I.T. asked how long, and Barnes replied “[s]ix months.” Tr. Vol. III p. 60 (internal quotation marks omitted). I.T. began to panic. Barnes told her that she would “adapt” or he could “put [her] up for ransom.” Tr. Vol. III p. 61 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes told I.T. that he did not “want money. I only want you” and “that this was all love at first sight, that he needed [her] in his life, that, like, he just needed [I.T.] there.” Tr. Vol. III p. 62 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[14] While sitting on the steps, I.T. and Barnes heard helicopters. Barnes “immediately said, [i]t's the cops. Your dad called the cops.” Tr. Vol. III p. 63 (internal quotation marks omitted). Barnes made I.T. hide under an awning that covered an underground area behind a house so that she would not be seen by the helicopters. Barnes “kissed [her] again and then he [told her] to take off [her] top, including [her] bra.” Tr. Vol. III pp. 63–64. Barnes put the bra over I.T.’s face and “used it as, like, a guide to pull [her] closer” to him. Tr. Vol. III p. 64. He then touched, kissed, and licked her breasts. Barnes instructed I.T. “to unbutton the buttons of [her] pants ․ and then he put his hand, like, underneath [her] underwear” and stuck his fingers inside her vagina. Tr. Vol. III p. 65. Barnes “then ․ pulled out his finger and ․ licked his finger. And then he also made [I.T.] do [it and]․ lick [her] finger. He also licked [her] finger too.” Tr. Vol. III p. 65. In doing this, Barnes grabbed I.T.’s hand and “guide[d] it down.” Tr. Vol. III p. 66.

[15] I.T. managed to keep her composure because she “knew that [she] was going to do whatever it [took] to keep [herself] alive and get [herself] out of that situation.” Tr. Vol. III p. 68. Barnes eventually became frustrated with I.T. and would not let her leave the area. In an effort to distract Barnes, I.T. told him that she was hungry. Barnes texted Brian Marshall to bring them some food and gave him directions to the house where he was hiding I.T. Barnes told Marshall, that he needed to meet Barnes's “new girlfriend.” Tr. Vol. III p. 152. Marshall briefly met with Barnes at the house before leaving to pick up food. After purchasing food, Marshall returned to the house. Marshall talked with Barnes while he and I.T. ate the food. I.T. repeatedly mouthed the words “[h]elp me” to Marshall. Tr. Vol. III p. 72 (internal quotation marks omitted).

[16] Jarrod Stotmeister, the asset manager of rental properties, received notification through motion-activated cameras that persons were on the back porch of one of his rental properties eating. He called 911 to have the persons removed from the property. Gary Police Officer Tommie Tatum was dispatched to the residence. Officer Tatum found Barnes, I.T., and Marshall behind the residence and asked what they were doing. I.T. told the officer that she had been kidnapped. Officer Tatum detained Barnes and radioed for backup. Officer Tatum recovered a black firearm from Barnes's person. After Barnes was arrested, I.T. was transported to the hospital.

[17] On August 10, 2024, the State charged Barnes with the following: Count I – Level 1 felony rape (I.T.), Count II – Level 2 felony kidnapping (I.T.), Count III – Level 2 felony kidnapping (A.T.), Count IV – Level 2 felony criminal confinement (I.T.), Count V – Level 2 felony criminal confinement (A.T.), Count VI – Level 3 felony rape (I.T.), Count VII – Level 3 felony armed robbery (A.T.), Count VIII – Level 3 felony kidnapping (I.T.), Count IX – Level 3 felony kidnapping (A.T.), Count X – Level 3 felony criminal confinement (I.T.), Count XI – Level 3 felony criminal confinement (A.T.), Count XII – Level 4 felony sexual battery (I.T.), Count XIII – Level 5 felony intimidation (I.T.), Count XIV – Level 5 felony intimidation (A.T.), Count XV – Level 6 felony pointing a firearm (I.T.), Count XVI – Level 6 felony pointing a firearm (A.T.), and Count XVII – Level 6 felony sexual battery (I.T.). The State also alleged that Barnes was eligible for the use-of-a-firearm sentence enhancement and that he was a habitual offender and a repeat sexual offender.

[18] Following trial, a jury found Barnes guilty of all charges. The trial court entered judgments of conviction on the following: Level 1 felony rape, two counts of Level 2 felony kidnapping, two counts of Level 2 felony criminal confinement, Level 3 felony armed robbery, Level 4 felony sexual battery, two counts of Level 5 felony intimidation, and two counts of Level 6 felony pointing a firearm. It withheld convictions on Counts VI, VIII, IX, X, XI, and XVI due to double-jeopardy concerns. Barnes “admitted to the Repeat Sexual Offender Enhancement and the Firearm Enhancement where the parties stipulated that [he] would receive ten (10) years for the Repeat Sexual Offender Enhancement and five (5) years for the Firearm Enhancement.” Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 72.

[19] In sentencing Barnes, the trial court found the following aggravating circumstances:

1. The Court finds that [Barnes] started his life of crime at age fifteen (15) and is currently seventy (70) years old;

2. [Barnes] has had nine (9) contact with the criminal justice system resulting in two (2) prior misdemeanor convictions and four (4) prior felony convictions;

3. [Barnes] was on parole for a Rape related offense when this offense was committed; and,

4. This offense is the fifth Rape related offense[3] committed by [Barnes].

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 71. As it related to I.T., the trial court imposed the following sentence:

Count I, Rape, thirty-five (35) years in the [DOC].

Count II, Kidnapping, twenty-five (25) years in the [DOC].

Count IV, Confinement, twenty-five (25) years in the [DOC].

Count XII, Sexual Battery, ten (10) years in the [DOC].

Count XIII, Intimidation, five (5) years in the [DOC].

Count XV, Pointing a Firearm, two (2) years in the [DOC].

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 71. The trial court ordered that “Counts IV, XII, XIII, and XV are to be served concurrently. Counts I and II are consecutive to each other and consecutive to Counts IV, XII, XIII[,] and XV[,]” for an eight-five-year sentence. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 71. As it relates to A.T., the trial court imposed the following sentence:

Count III, Kidnapping, twenty-five (25) years in the [DOC].

Count V, Confinement, twenty-five (25) years in the [DOC].

Count VII, Armed Robbery, fourteen (14) years in the [DOC].

Count XIV, Intimidation, five (5) years in the [DOC].

Count XVI, Pointing a Firearm, two (2) years in the [DOC].

Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 71. The trial court ordered that “Counts III and VII are to be served consecutive to each other. Counts V, XIV[,] and XVI are to be served concurrently to each other but consecutive to Counts III and VII[,]” for a sixty-four-year sentence. Appellant's App. Vol. II p. 72. The trial court enhanced Barnes's sentence by fifteen years, by virtue of the admitted enhancements, for a total aggregate 164-year sentence.

Discussion and Decision

[20] Barnes contends that his convictions for the kidnapping and criminal confinement of both I.T. and A.T. violated Indiana's prohibitions against substantive double jeopardy, claiming that “[t]he entry of conviction on both the kidnapping and confinement charges is double jeopardy[ ]” because criminal confinement, as charged in this case, “is a lesser included offense of kidnapping.” Appellant's Br. p. 9.

[21] Questions of law, including double-jeopardy claims, are reviewed de novo. A.W. v. State, 229 N.E.3d 1060, 1064 (Ind. 2024). “[S]ubstantive double jeopardy refers to claims related to multiple convictions for the same offense in a single proceeding.” Id. at 1066. “Substantive double jeopardy claims come in two principal varieties: (1) when a single criminal act or transaction violates a single statute but harms multiple victims, and (2) when a single criminal act or transaction violates multiple statutes with common elements and harms one or more victims.”⁴ Wadle v. State, 151 N.E.3d 227, 247 (Ind. 2020). “In either circumstance, the dispositive question is one of statutory intent.” Id.

[22] When a single criminal act or transaction violates multiple statutes with common elements, courts “first look to the statutory language” for each charge. Id. at 248. If the language of either statute “clearly permits” multiple punishments, there is no double-jeopardy violation. Id. However, if neither applicable statute clearly permits multiple punishments, either expressly or by unmistakable implication, we move on to the next step of the analysis.

[23] The next step is to determine whether one of the offenses is inherently or factually included in the other. Wadle, 151 N.E.3d at 248.

“Included offense” means an offense that:

(1) is established by proof of the same material elements or less than all the material elements required to establish the commission of the offense charged;

(2) consists of an attempt to commit the offense charged or an offense otherwise included therein; or

(3) differs from the offense charged only in the respect that a less serious harm or risk of harm to the same person, property, or public interest, or a lesser kind of culpability, is required to establish its commission.

Ind. Code § 35-31.5-2-168. “[T]o constitute an inherently included offense, it must fit within one of [the] enumerated subsections” of Indiana Code § 35-31.5-2-168. A.W., 229 N.E.3d at 1067. “If neither offense is an included offense of the other (either inherently or as charged), there is no violation of double jeopardy and the analysis ends—full stop.” Id. (internal quotation omitted). “But if one offense is included in the other, the court must proceed to Step 3.” Id.

[24] The third and final step of our substantive double jeopardy analysis gives the State the opportunity to rebut the presumptive double jeopardy violation. To do so, the State must demonstrate that it made clear to the fact-finder at trial that the apparently included charge was supported by independent evidence such that the State made a distinction between what would otherwise be two of the same offenses. However, if the State's evidence at trial shows only a single continuous crime, and one statutory offense is included in the other, the State may not obtain cumulative convictions.

Bolcerek v. State, 255 N.E.3d 1206, 1219 (Ind. Ct. App. 2025) (internal citations and quotations omitted), trans. denied. In cases “[w]here a defendant is found guilty of both the greater offense and an included offense, the proper procedure is to vacate the conviction for the included offense and to enter a judgment of conviction and sentence only upon the greater offense.” O'Connor v. State, 234 N.E.3d 242, 247 (Ind. Ct. App. 2024). Where the offenses are the same level, we will simply choose one conviction to be vacated. Noble v. State, 734 N.E.2d 1119, 1125 (Ind. Ct. App. 2000), trans. denied.

[25] Indiana Code section 35-42-3-2(a) provides that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally removes another person, by fraud, enticement, force, or threat of force, from one place to another commits kidnapping.” Indiana Code section 35-42-3-3(a) provides that “[a] person who knowingly or intentionally confines another person without the other person's consent commits criminal confinement.” The State concedes that “[t]he kidnapping and criminal confinement statutes only permit multiple punishments for multiple victims[ ]” as each statute contains “a clear unit of prosecution in the victim[,]” i.e., a person. Appellee's Br. pp. 15, 16. Because neither statute clearly permits multiple punishments, we move on to the next step of our analysis.

[26] As it relates to the next step, we have concluded that confinement was an included offense of kidnapping. See Koziski v. State, 172 N.E.3d 338, 343 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021) (citing Madden v. State, 162 N.E.3d 549 (Ind. Ct. App. 2021); Jones v. State, 159 N.E.3d 55 (Ind. Ct. App. 2020), trans. denied), trans. denied. We reach the same conclusion here and accordingly move on to step three.

[27] The State concedes that “Barnes's convictions for the kidnapping and criminal confinement of I.T. violate the prohibition against double jeopardy.” Appellee's Br. p. 16. In making this concession, the State notes that

Barnes's actions regarding I.T. cannot be distinguished. From the moment Barnes grabbed I.T. and pressed a gun into her ribs outside the Michael Jackson house, she was continually confined and transported to different locations[.] At no point was she free to leave[.] As such, this case should be remanded to the trial court to vacate Barnes's conviction for the criminal confinement of I.T. and for resentencing, especially in light of complex sentencing structure carefully crafted by the trial court.

Appellee's Br. p. 16 (internal record citations omitted). We agree that the facts surrounding Barnes's act of kidnapping and confining I.T. cannot be distinguished. On remand, we instruct the trial court to vacate Barnes's conviction for the criminal confinement of I.T.

[28] As it relates to A.T., the State argues that “Barnes's convictions for the kidnapping and criminal confinement of A.T. do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy [because u]nlike Barnes's conduct toward I.T., his conduct toward A.T. can be distinguished.” Appellee's Br. p. 17. The State asserts that the kidnapping ended when Barnes exited the vehicle with I.T. and walked away. It claims the confinement happened a short time later when Barnes reapproached with I.T. and instructed Barnes, at gunpoint, to stay in the vehicle. For his part, Barnes argues that “his actions were so compressed in terms of time, place, singleness of purpose, and continuity of action that they were the same offense.” Appellant's Br. p. 13. Barnes asserts that both charges cannot stand because “[t]here was one, single, on-going interaction between Barnes and A.T. that took place over a short period of time.” Appellant's Reply Br. p. 4. Given the facts of the instant case, we agree with Barnes on this point. As such, on remand, we instruct the trial court to vacate Barnes's conviction for the criminal confinement of A.T..

[29] In sum, we conclude that with respect to both I.T. and A.T., Barnes's convictions for both kidnapping and criminal confinement violate the prohibitions against double jeopardy and, on remand, we instruct the trial court to vacate Barnes's convictions and sentences for criminal confinement under Counts IV and V. The sum total sentence for these convictions is fifty years. We further instruct the trial court to resentence Barnes to a sentence of 129 years.⁵ In all other respects, we affirm.

[30] The judgment of the trial court is affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded to the trial court with instructions.

FOOTNOTES

1.   Michael Jackson's childhood home has been converted into a private museum with memorabilia, but the public can access and view the outside of the home.

2.   A member of this group called 911 and reported that a man was pointing a gun at a female outside the Michael Jackson house.

3.   Barnes was convicted of forcible felony rape in Mississippi in 1971. He was convicted of rape in Indiana in 1978 and 1985. In 1978, he pled guilty to Class C felony battery in exchange for the dismissal of an attempted-rape charge. Barnes was on parole for his 1985 conviction for Class A felony rape, a conviction for which he had served approximately thirty-five years in the Indiana Department of Correction (“DOC”) before being released to parole in 2020, and then, following a violation of the terms of his parole and re-incarceration, being re-released to parole in August of 2024.

4.   We note that the Indiana Supreme Court recently issued an opinion in Moyers v. State, 2026 WL 786823 *3–4 (Ind. March 20, 2026) which clarified that its opinion in Powell v. State, 151 N.E.3d 256 (Ind. 2020), applies to multiple convictions for elevated offenses that share a common base offense. In this case, Wadle applies as Barnes's actions violated multiple statutes with common elements.

5.   “In the interest of efficient judicial administration, the trial court need not undertake a full sentencing reevaluation, but rather the reviewing court will make this determination itself, being mindful of the penal consequences that the trial court found appropriate.” Moala v. State, 969 N.E.2d 1061, 1065 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).

Bradford, Judge.

Pyle, J., and Kenworthy, J., concur