Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was charged with murder and criminal gang activity. During trial, the trial court excused a juror from the jury after she disclosed that she had a frightening experience at her apartment and that she could not render an impartial verdict. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion for a mistrial, concluding that the juror’s incident was unrelated to Defendant’s case and that the jury could remain impartial. The jury subsequently found Defendant guilty of murder and criminal gang activity. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s denial of Defendant’s motion for a mistrial, holding (1) defendants are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice when they can show by a preponderance of the evidence that an unauthorized, extra-judicial contact or communication with jurors occurred and that the contact or communication pertained to the matter before the jury; and (2) Defendant in this case was not entitled to the presumption of prejudice because he failed to prove that the juror’s extraneous contact and communications related to his case. View "Ramirez v. State" on Justia Law

In 2005, Appellant was convicted of a sex crime against an adult female. In 2009, Appellant was released to statutorily mandated parole. The conditions of Appellant’s parole prohibited Appellant from having contact with children, even his own, and included a requirement that Appellant participate in, and successfully complete, a state treatment program for sex offenders. Appellant filed suit, seeking a declaratory judgment as to the constitutionality of those parole conditions. The trial court granted summary judgment to Appellant with respect to the conditions involving Appellant’s family but otherwise denied Appellant summary judgment on his other claims. Before the case reached the Supreme Court, the Parole Board conceded that it no longer sought to impose the parole conditions in a manner that would restrict Appellant’s relationships with his children and wife. The Supreme Court (1) concluded that some of Appellant’s parole conditions were impermissible, including the conditions that were aimed at restricting Appellant from being near or associating with children, as there was no evidence that Appellant was a threat to children; (2) found no fault with the remainder of the conditions; and (3) found no constitutional flaw in the state treatment program. View "Bleeke v. Lemmon" on Justia Law

Defendant was one of three men that police officers encountered in a self-storage facility and ordered to the ground. After questioning Defendant about the contents of the black bag he was carrying, Defendant admitted it contained marijuana. A subsequent search revealed methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia. The officers then searched Defendant's car, which contained marijuana and equipment for manufacturing methamphetamine. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to suppress his confession and the evidence found in the black bag and in his car. The court subsequently convicted Defendant of several drug-related offenses. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction, holding that Defendant's confession and the evidence leading to his conviction were fruits of an unlawful detention, as the officers' initial stop of Defendant and the subsequent warrantless search of Defendant's bag did not satisfy the requirements of the Fourth Amendment. Remanded.View "Clark v. State" on Justia Law

Andrew McWhorter appealed the denial of his petition for post-conviction relief, arguing trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for failing to object to a flawed voluntary manslaughter jury instruction. The Court of Appeals reversed the judgment, and remanded the case for retrial. On transfer, the Supreme Court also reversed the judgment of the post-conviction court, but concluded that on remand, there was no prohibition for retrial on either voluntary manslaughter or reckless homicide. View "McWhorter v. Indiana" on Justia Law

The County Department of Child Services filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Father to his child. At the conclusion of the termination hearing, the magistrate that presided over the hearing resigned her position before reporting recommended factual findings and conclusions to Judge Marilyn Moores. The case was subsequently transferred to Magistrate Larry Bradley, who reviewed the hearing record and reported recommended findings and conclusions without holding a new evidentiary hearing. Judge Moores approved the findings and conclusions and terminated Father’s parental rights. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that where a case is tried to a judge who resigns before determining the issues, a successor judge cannot decide the issues or enter findings without a trial de novo. Remanded. View "In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of I.P." on Justia Law

The County Department of Child Services filed a petition to involuntarily terminate the parental rights of Mother to her four children. The case was tried to a judge who resigned before reporting recommended findings and conclusions to Judge Marilyn Moores. The case was transferred to Magistrate Larry Bradley, who reviewed the hearing record and reported recommended findings and conclusions without holding a new evidentiary hearing. Judge Moores approved the findings and conclusions and terminated Mother’s parental rights. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment, holding that, in accord with In re I.P., also decided today, the procedure used in this case violated Mother’s due process rights. Remanded. View "In re Involuntary Termination of Parent-Child Relationship of S.B." on Justia Law

A law enforcement officer stopped the vehicle Defendant was driving after observing the vehicle driving under the speed limit and coming to a full stop before turning onto a county road, where Defendant drove left of center. Defendant was subsequently charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated and with an alcohol concentration equivalent of 0.08 or more. The trial court granted Defendant’s motion to suppress on the ground that the officer lacked reasonable suspicion to initiate the traffic stop, taking judicial notice of the poor condition of the county’s roads, which required “evasive action” on the part of drivers. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s grant of Defendant’s motion to suppress, holding that, under these circumstances, the trial court did not clearly err in concluding that Defendant’s driving left of center did not provide reasonable suspicion to stop him. View "State v. Keck" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with four misdemeanors after a law enforcement officer stopped her vehicle for “unsafe lane movement,” conducted field sobriety tests on Defendant, which she failed, and discovered marijuana concealed in Defendant’s clothing. Defendant filed a motion to suppress, arguing that the officer did not have reasonable suspicion to justify the stop. The trial court denied Defendant’s motion, concluding that, while a video from the officer’s vehicle did not show Defendant’s vehicle leaving the roadway, it did show Defendant’s vehicle veering onto the white fog line, and to the extent the officer’s testimony conflicted with the video, the testimony was more reliable than the video. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, under the totality of the circumstances, the officer’s conduct was reasonable, and the stop was constitutional. View "Robinson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to driving while suspended as a habitual traffic violator (HTV). Defendant later filed a petition for post-conviction relief challenging an underlying offense for operating a vehicle while intoxicated (OWI) on grounds of the trial judge's alleged impropriety and the alleged violation of his right to counsel. The post-conviction court vacated the OWI conviction based on impropriety on the part of the trial judge. Defendant subsequently filed a motion to set aside his guilty plea because the OWI underlying offense had been set aside. The trial court granted the motion, set aside the guilty plea, and ordered Defendant's conviction expunged from his record. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) although a defendant who pleads guilty to driving while suspended as a HTV may not later challenge the plea contending that an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of procedural error, the defendant may be entitled to relief where an underlying offense has been set aside on grounds of material error; and (2) the State failed to meet its burden of demonstrating the trial court clearly erred in granting Defendant's motion to withdraw his guilty plea.View "State v. Oney" on Justia Law

Petitioner was charged with felony rape and related charges. Petitioner's case was first tried to a jury in 2008. The jury deadlocked on Petitioner's charges for felony rape and felony confinement, and a retrial was scheduled. After a second bench trial, the trial court found Defendant guilty of felony rape and not guilty of criminal confinement. The court of appeals affirmed. Petitioner's convictions were affirmed on appeal. Petitioner subsequently filed a petition for post-conviction relief, alleging, inter alia, that his trial counsel was ineffective for failing to object and/or move for a dismissal of the rape charge on state double jeopardy grounds. The post-conviction court denied the petition. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the "actual evidence" test announced in Richardson v. State is applicable to cases in which there has been an acquittal on one charge and retrial on another charge after a hung jury; and (2) the post-conviction court properly denied Petitioner's petition.View "Garrett v. State" on Justia Law