Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 2012, the Common Council of the City of Evansville enacted an ordinance (“the Amending Ordinance”) that amended an existing smoking ban (“the Smoking Ban”). The Amending Ordinance extended the Smoking Ban to bars, taverns, and eating establishments but exempted riverboat casinos from the Smoking Ban. Various bars and private clubs brought actions against the City and its Council, claiming that the Amending Ordinance was unconstitutional. The trial court upheld the constitutionality of the Amending Ordinance, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) on its face, the Amending Ordinance violates the Equal Privileges and Immunities Clause of the Indiana Constitution because the disparate treatment is not reasonably related to the inherent differences between divergently-related classes; and (2) the Amending Ordinance must be stricken in its entirety. View "Paul Stieler Enters., Inc. v. City of Evansville" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murder, felony murder, robbery, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant’s conviction and sentence, holding (1) Ind. Code 35-50-2-9(1) is constitutional and its constitutionality does not require that the weighing of aggravators and mitigators be done beyond a reasonable doubt; (2) the trial court did not commit prejudicial error in its rulings regarding admission of evidence, use of an exhibit, instruction on felony murder, provision of a definition of asportation, and denial of surrebuttal; and (3) Defendant’s life sentence without the possibility of parole was appropriate. View "Inman v. State" on Justia Law

A fire destroyed a restaurant insured by Insurers. The Insurers brought suit against the City of Indianapolis and Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC - a private, for-profit company responsible for operating the City’s water utility pursuant to a contract with the City - claiming that the water supply in the hydrants near the restaurant was inadequate to fight the fire. The City claimed sovereign immunity under both the common law and the Indiana Tort Claims Act (ITCA). Veolia also claimed common law sovereign immunity from liability. The trial court concluded that the City and Veolia were not entitled to sovereign immunity regarding the adequacy of the water supply. The Supreme Court (1) affirmed the trial court’s rulings that Veolia was not entitled to common law sovereign immunity and that the City was not entitled to statutory sovereign immunity from liability for damages resulting from an inadequate water supply; and (2) reversed the trial court’s ruling that the City was not entitled to common law sovereign immunity, as a governmental unit’s failure to provide adequate fire protection is an exception to governmental tort liability under Campbell v. State. View "Veolia Water Indianapolis, LLC v. Nat’l Trust Ins. Co." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of burglary as a class C felony and theft as a class D felony. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted transfer to address Defendant's argument that the trial court erred by admitting DNA evidence in violation of his Sixth Amendment right to confrontation. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the trial court did not err in admitting certain DNA evidence, as the Constitution does not require a laboratory technician involved in the chain of custody of DNA evidence to testify at trial in order to satisfy the demands of a defendant's Sixth Amendment right of confrontation. View "Speers v. State" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of sexual misconduct with a minor as class B felonies. The trial court sentenced Defendant to maximum consecutive terms after finding "substantial aggravating circumstances" and no mitigating circumstances. The court of appeals revised the sentence to concurrent terms of twenty years, finding that Defendant's forty-year sentence was not proportionate in comparison to Walker v. State and Harris v. State. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the sentence imposed by the trial court, holding that the sentence in this case was not inappropriate under Ind. R. App. 7(B) and did not warrant appellate revision. View "Chambers v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with the murder of his mother. He was subsequently found guilty but mentally ill and ultimately sentenced to fifty-five years' incarceration. Defendant filed an amended petition for post-conviction relief, alleging that his trial counsel rendered ineffective assistance for, inter alia, failing to object to the trial court's tendered instruction on the penal consequences of verdicts for not responsible by reason of insanity and guilty but mentally ill. Defendant's petition was denied. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Defendant failed to satisfy the prejudice prong of Strickland v. Washington and therefore could not prevail on his ineffective assistance claim. View "Passwater v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was stopped by a police officer due to his darkly-shaded tinted windows. The police officer smelled marijuana and subsequently searched Defendant's person, where he found cocaine. The State charged Defendant with felony possession of cocaine. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence, arguing that the officer lacked probable cause to stop him and search his person. The trial court denied the motion, concluding that, although the tint of the windows on Defendant's car was within the statutorily defined limits, the officer's good faith subjective belief of Defendant's violation of a traffic law was enough to justify the initial stop. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the officer had reasonable suspicion that the tint on Defendant's vehicle's windows was in violation of the window tint statute, and therefore, the initial stop was justified; (2) the officer had probable cause to search Defendant's person after smelling marijuana; and (3) because the search was legal, the trial court correctly denied Defendant's motion to suppress the evidence obtained from the search. View "Sanders v. State" on Justia Law

After Defendant was charged with murder, he filed a motion seeking bail. At the same time, Defendant filed a motion seeking a declaration that Ind. Code 35-33-8-2(b), which assigns to a defendant charged with murder the burden of showing he is entitled to bail, is unconstitutional. The trial court denied Defendant bail. The Supreme Court declared the statute unconstitutional but nevertheless affirmed, holding (1) when a defendant charged with murder seeks bail, the burden must be placed on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant should be denied bail; but (2) under the circumstances presented in this case, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant bail. View "Fry v. State" on Justia Law

After certain members of the Indiana House of Representatives Democratic Caucus left the state to prevent the formation of a quorum in order to block a vote on impending legislation, House Republicans passed motions to fine the absent legislators. The fines were withheld from the legislators' pay. Plaintiffs brought suit seeking to recover the withheld pay. The trial court concluded that the determination of the fine was outside the court's jurisdiction because the determination of the fine was within the House's "exclusive constitutional authority" but that review of the collection of fines was within the court's jurisdiction. The court then ordered return of the withheld pay and issued an injunction preventing future withholding. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that when, as here, the Indiana Constitution expressly assigns certain functions to the legislative branch without any contrary constitutional limitation or qualification, disputes arising in the exercise of such legislative powers are nonjusticiable, and the doctrine of separation of powers precludes judicial consideration of the claims for relief. Remanded for dismissal of Plaintiffs' claims for lack of justiciability. View "Berry v. Crawford" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with murder and assisting suicide. Defendant requested to speak to an attorney while in police custody, but the following afternoon, detectives re-read Defendant his Miranda rights, and Defendant confessed his role in his father's death without counsel present. Defendant filed a motion to suppress the incriminating statements he made to the detective in response to police inquiries. The trial court denied the motion to suppress, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendant's motion to suppress, holding that the totality of the circumstances involving the content, place, and timing of the communication by the police with Defendant, notwithstanding Defendant's prior invocation of his right to counsel, constituted impermissible questioning or its functional equivalent. Remanded. View "Hartman v. State" on Justia Law