Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In this case, the State filed charges against Defendant, and after a brief period of incarceration, Defendant was released. Shortly after his release, Defendant was again incarcerated but on a probation-revocation case. While he was incarcerated on the probation-revocation case, Defendant filed a Ind. R. Crim. P. 4(B) motion requesting a speedy trial on the pending charges. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Rule 4(B) is available to a defendant only when the defendant is held on the pending charges for which he requests a speedy trial; and (2) accordingly, Rule 4(B) was not available to Defendant on the pending charges for which he sought a speedy trial because he was not incarcerated on those charges. View "Cundiff v. State" on Justia Law

Brice Webb was charged with murder in the shooting death of his girlfriend. Webb requested a jury instruction on the lesser offense of reckless homicide. The trial court denied the request and Webb was convicted as charged. The Supreme Court reversed Webb's conviction and remanded the cause for a new trial, holding that the trial court's refusal to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of reckless homicide was reversible error, as the evidence in this case produced a serious evidentiary dispute concerning Webb's state of mind, and whether Webb acted knowingly or recklessly, that would justify giving the requested instruction. View "Webb v. State" on Justia Law

The trial court revoked the probation of Troy Smith for failure to pay weekly child support as a condition of his probation. On appeal, Smith argued that the State failed to carry its burden of proof that his failure to pay was reckless, knowing, or intentional. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) it is the defendant probationer's burden to show facts related to an inability to pay and indicating sufficient bona fide efforts to pay so as to persuade the trial court that further imprisonment should not be ordered; and (2) here, Smith failed to carry his burden, and therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in revoking Smith's probation. View "Smith v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, three plaintiff-classes and Sheila Perdue individually, brought a class action complaint seeking declaratory and injunction relief alleging violations of their federal statutory and constitutional rights. Plaintiffs challenged the Indiana Family and Social Services Administration's (FSSA) automated system of processing claims for Medicaid, Food Stamps, and Temporary Assistance to Needy Families benefits. The trial court held (1) the FSSA's denial notices satisfied due process; (2) the FSSA could not deny an application for Food Stamp benefits when the applicant failed to cooperate in the eligibility determination process; and (3) determined that the FSSA had failed to accommodate Perdue's disabilities in violation of the Americans with Disabilities Act and the Rehabilitation Act. The Supreme Court reversed in part and affirmed in part, holding (1) the FSSA's denial notices were insufficiently explanatory in violation of due process; (2) the FSSA may deny an application for Food Stamp benefit when the applicant fails to cooperate in the eligibility determination process; and (3) Perdue was entitled to reasonable accommodations in applying for benefits, but that did not necessarily require providing a caseworker or case management services. View "Perdue v. Gargano" on Justia Law

A jury found Rodney Nicholson guilty of stalking and harassment, and Nicholson admitted to being a habitual offender. A majority of the court of appeals held that a span of twenty-two months between contacts would not fit the definition of repeated or continuing harassment and therefore would not support a conviction for stalking. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the trial court, holding that the lag in time between the harassing calls in 2006 and subsequent single call in 2008 did not foreclose the conviction for stalking, as there was no statutorily determine timeframe required for a stalking conviction and there was sufficient evidence for the trier of fact to determine Nicholson engaged in stalking. View "Nicholson v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with felony robbery, felony theft, and felony receiving stolen property. Before trial, the trial court permitted a late filing of a habitual-offender charge. The jury found Defendant was guilty of theft and receiving stolen property and determined that White was a habitual offender. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thereby vacating the decision of the court of appeals but summarily affirming the court of appeals' decision that the two convictions violated double jeopardy principles (resulting in vacation of Defendant's conviction for receiving stolen property). The Court then held (1) under the circumstances of this case, Defendant did not preserve the issue of whether the trial court properly allowed the habitual-offender filing; and (2) the authenticated and certified evidence was sufficient to uphold the jury's determination that Defendant was a habitual offender. View "White v. State" on Justia Law

Jimmie Jones was charged with murder. At trial, Jones tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses to the murder charge. The trial court refused Jones's instructions, finding that those lesser included offenses were not supported by the evidence. A jury later found Jones guilty of murder. On appeal, Jones disputed that his tendered instructions were not supported by the evidence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the judgment of the trial court after adopting the opinion of the court of appeals, which concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion by finding no serious evidentiary dispute. View "Jones v. State" on Justia Law

A jury found Jesse Harris guilty of murder and two counts of attempted murder. The trial court sentenced Harris to a total of 165 years incarceration. The court of appeals affirmed. Harris appealed, contending that the State engaged in forum shopping. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thus vacating the court of appeals, to clarify that a defendant claiming a violation of a local felony case assignment rule need not establish prejudice to prevail on appeal. The Court affirmed Harris's conviction, holding (1) the trial court correctly interpreted the rule, and (2) no violation of the rule occurred in this case. View "Harris v. State" on Justia Law

Almost two million Indiana voters cast their ballots for Secretary of State in November 2010. The Indiana Democratic Party sought to have the winner in the election, Republican Charlie White, declared ineligible to assume office because he had not been registered to vote at the address at which he resided in July 15, 2010, the deadline for certifying candidates for state office. The Indiana Recount Commission dismissed the petition and later denied it. The circuit court reversed, directing that the Commission declare White ineligible. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court and affirmed the Commission's dismissal, holding that the the Commission's action was not arbitrary, capricious or otherwise not in accordance with law because the Indiana Democratic Party's challenge was untimely. View "White v. Ind. Democratic Party" on Justia Law

The Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging T.N. was a child in need of services (CHINS) and requested that T.N. be removed from Father's care. Father objected to removal. A fact-finding hearing was subsequently held, at which time Mother notified the tribal court that she was prepared to make an admission to the CHINS allegations. Father objected. The tribal court told Father he could offer his objections at a contested dispositional hearing. The trial court then found T.N. to be a CHINS. Father appealed. The court of appeals reversed, finding the trial court violated Father's due process rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that for the reasons explained in In re K.D., also decided on this day, the trial court erred in not conducting a fact-finding hearing that was requested by Father, and thus, the court violated Father's due process rights. View "In re T.N." on Justia Law