Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Stevie Bradley was accused of multiple felonies, including attempted murder and domestic battery, after a violent incident with his girlfriend, A.R. Bradley demanded A.R. call another man, and when no one answered, he assaulted her. The violence continued as he drove through rural St. Joseph County, eventually threatening her with a machete. A.R. fled to a nearby home, but Bradley recaptured her, further assaulting her before she managed to escape again. The State charged Bradley with several offenses, and he requested a speedy trial.The St. Joseph Superior Court initially set Bradley's trial within the seventy-day window required by Criminal Rule 4(B). However, the court later ordered a competency evaluation for Bradley, vacating the original trial date. After Bradley was deemed competent, the court reset the trial date beyond the seventy-day period, leading Bradley to file multiple motions for discharge, arguing that his right to a speedy trial was violated. The trial court denied these motions, and Bradley was convicted on all charges except strangulation.The Indiana Court of Appeals vacated Bradley's convictions, ruling that the trial court erred by resetting the seventy-day period instead of merely tolling it during the competency evaluation. The court found no justification for scheduling the trial beyond the original deadline. The State petitioned for transfer, which the Indiana Supreme Court granted.The Indiana Supreme Court held that a trial court’s sua sponte order for a competency evaluation does not reset the Criminal Rule 4(B) period but merely tolls it. However, the court also held that Bradley waived his right to discharge by failing to properly notify the trial court of its scheduling error. Consequently, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment. View "Bradley v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

Joseph Corcoran was convicted of four murders by an Allen County jury, and the judge sentenced him to death as recommended by the jury. Corcoran has been involved in extensive litigation over the past 25 years, including multiple decisions from the Indiana Supreme Court and the United States Supreme Court, regarding the constitutionality of his execution. Corcoran has expressed his desire to accept his conviction and sentence, stating that he does not wish to pursue further legal challenges.The Allen Superior Court initially sentenced Corcoran to death, and the Indiana Supreme Court remanded for resentencing due to the consideration of non-statutory aggravating factors. Upon resentencing, the death sentence was reimposed and affirmed by the Indiana Supreme Court. Corcoran chose not to pursue post-conviction relief, leading to competency proceedings initiated by the State Public Defender, who argued that Corcoran was incompetent to waive post-conviction remedies. The trial court and the Indiana Supreme Court found Corcoran competent. Corcoran later filed an untimely petition for post-conviction relief, which was dismissed.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and denied the State Public Defender's motions to file successive petitions for post-conviction relief and to stay the execution. The court held that Corcoran is competent to waive post-conviction remedies and that the State Public Defender lacks standing to file the petitions without Corcoran's authorization. Additionally, the court found no reasonable possibility that Corcoran is entitled to relief, as the claims presented were procedurally defaulted and previously addressed. The court concluded that Corcoran has a rational understanding of his execution and the reasons for it, and thus, denied the motions for a stay of execution. View "Corcoran v. State" on Justia Law

Russell Finnegan was held in indirect contempt by a judge for sending vulgar and offensive communications to the court. Finnegan's counsel requested a mental health evaluation under Indiana Code section 35-36-2-2(b), which the trial court denied. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, finding the denial to be an error. The appellate court held that the statutory procedures for asserting an insanity defense in criminal proceedings should apply to indirect criminal contempt actions.The Pulaski Circuit Court initially found Finnegan in contempt for his communications, which included vulgar language and disrespectful remarks directed at the judge. During the contempt hearing, Finnegan's counsel mentioned that he was undergoing mental health evaluations in an unrelated criminal case and requested a continuance for these evaluations. The trial court denied the continuance and did not act on the request to appoint mental health experts. Finnegan was found in contempt and sentenced to 170 days in jail. The Court of Appeals reversed this decision, ruling that Finnegan was entitled to the same statutory protections as other criminal defendants, including the right to a mental health evaluation.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion. The Supreme Court held that the statutory procedures for asserting an insanity defense in criminal cases do not apply to indirect criminal contempt actions because such actions are not considered "criminal cases" under the relevant statute. The court emphasized that indirect contempt is a sui generis proceeding, distinct from both criminal and civil cases. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, concluding that the insanity defense statutes do not apply to indirect contempt proceedings. View "Finnegan v. State" on Justia Law

Mathew Cramer was convicted of murdering and dismembering Shane Nguyen. Cramer, who lived in a storage unit, accepted a ride from Nguyen, and after a series of interactions, Cramer decided to kill Nguyen. He lured Nguyen to the storage unit, choked him, and then further assaulted him until he was dead. Cramer and an accomplice then dismembered Nguyen's body, placed the parts in trash bags, and attempted to dispose of them. They were apprehended after a police chase.The Allen Superior Court found Cramer guilty of murder, abuse of a corpse, and resisting law enforcement. The jury recommended a sentence of life imprisonment without parole (LWOP), which the trial court imposed. Cramer appealed, requesting a revision of his sentence to a term of years under Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B), arguing that his actions and character did not warrant LWOP.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and upheld the trial court's decision. The court found that the nature of Cramer’s offense was extremely brutal, involving premeditated murder and grotesque dismemberment of the victim. Additionally, Cramer’s criminal history and lack of mitigating factors supported the LWOP sentence. The court concluded that Cramer’s sentence was appropriate given the heinous nature of the crime and his character, and thus declined to revise it. View "Cramer v. State" on Justia Law

Four appellants sought post-conviction relief in Elkhart County, Indiana, alleging systemic police and prosecutorial misconduct that led to wrongful convictions. They argued that the judge, who had recused herself in a similar prior case involving Andrew Royer, should also recuse herself from their cases due to similar concerns about impartiality. The judge had previously recused herself in Royer's case because she had characterized Royer's attorney's comments as "defamatory" and had worked with many of the witnesses Royer intended to call, raising questions about her impartiality.In the lower courts, the Elkhart Circuit Court judge denied the appellants' motions for recusal, reasoning that her prior employment as a deputy prosecutor did not necessitate recusal and that her comments in Royer's case were misunderstood. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decisions, agreeing with the judge's reasoning.The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed the case and concluded that the judge's prior decision to recuse in Royer's case should have compelled her to recuse in these cases as well. The Court held that an objective observer, aware of the judge's prior recusal and the similar concerns raised in these cases, would reasonably question her impartiality. The Court emphasized that the judge's entanglement with the evidence had only deepened, and there was no change in circumstances that would eliminate the concerns leading to her initial recusal.The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the trial court's orders denying the motions for recusal and remanded the cases with instructions to grant the motions, ensuring that the judge recuses herself from these proceedings. View "Seabolt v. State" on Justia Law

In June 2021, Cohen Hancz-Barron was living with his on-and-off girlfriend, Sarah Zent, and her three young children in Fort Wayne, Indiana. On the morning of June 2, Hancz-Barron drove away in a neighbor's truck, and Sarah and her children were later found dead in their home. The victims had been stabbed multiple times, with wounds severing their jugular veins and carotid arteries. Hancz-Barron quickly became the primary suspect, and he was arrested later that day in Lafayette, Indiana. The State charged Hancz-Barron with four counts of murder and sought a sentence of life without the possibility of parole.At trial, the State presented photographic, DNA, video, and physical evidence, as well as testimony from family members, friends, law enforcement, a forensic pathologist, and a forensic biologist. The jury found Hancz-Barron guilty as charged. At sentencing, the State incorporated the evidence presented during the guilt phase to support the two statutory aggravators. The defense presented mitigating evidence through testimony from both Hancz-Barron’s mother and a forensic psychologist who examined Hancz-Barron after his arrest. The jury found the State proved both statutory aggravators beyond a reasonable doubt, found the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances, and recommended “a sentence of life imprisonment without parole.” The trial court then found “more than sufficient evidence to support” the jury’s decision, and sentenced Hancz-Barron to four consecutive life sentences.In the Indiana Supreme Court, Hancz-Barron challenged the sufficiency of evidence to sustain his convictions, the trial court’s decision allowing the State to recall a witness, and his sentence on both statutory and constitutional grounds. The court rejected each challenge and affirmed the lower court's decision. The court held that sufficient evidence supported Hancz-Barron’s convictions and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the State to recall a witness. The court also held that it could not review the jury’s weighing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, Hancz-Barron had not shown that his sentence was inappropriate, and his sentence was not unconstitutional. View "Hancz-Barron v. State" on Justia Law

The defendant, William R. Grimes, was charged with multiple crimes following a violent altercation with Matthew Pirtle. Grimes requested a speedy trial under Criminal Rule 4, which was granted by the court. However, due to a series of events including the addition of new charges, a conflict of interest with the trial judge, and court congestion, the trial was postponed beyond the 70-day limit stipulated by Rule 4. Grimes objected to this delay and filed a motion for discharge, arguing that the court's claim of congestion was inaccurate. His motion was denied without explanation by the trial court.The case was initially heard in the Sullivan Superior Court, where Grimes' motion for discharge was denied. Grimes appealed this decision to the Indiana Court of Appeals, which affirmed the lower court's ruling. The appellate panel held that Grimes failed to show he was entitled to discharge because he presented no evidence that the trial court’s congestion finding was clearly erroneous on the date it continued the trial.The case was then reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court. The court held that Grimes had met his burden to show a prima facie case of no court congestion when he submitted the court’s docket showing no other scheduling conflicts with priority over his criminal trial. This shifted the burden to the trial court to explain the postponement. However, the trial court failed to meet this burden as it gave no explanation when it denied the defendant’s motion for discharge. As a result, the Indiana Supreme Court reversed the lower courts' decisions and remanded the case with instructions to discharge Grimes. View "Grimes v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

In 1995, Jerry E. Russell Sr. was convicted of the murder of Pamela Foddrill, along with other crimes, and was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole (LWOP) plus 120 years. Russell appealed his sentence, which resulted in a modification of his sentences for criminal confinement and criminal deviate conduct, reducing his total sentence to LWOP plus 73 years. In 2003, Russell filed a Petition for Post-Conviction Relief (PCR), which was dismissed in 2019 in exchange for a resentencing hearing. The resentencing court upheld Russell's original sentence of LWOP plus 73 years.Russell appealed the resentencing order, arguing that he was intellectually disabled and therefore ineligible for an LWOP sentence, that his convictions violated double jeopardy protections, and that his sentence was inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and his character. The Indiana Supreme Court rejected all of Russell's arguments and affirmed the resentencing court's order. The court found that Russell had not proven that he was intellectually disabled, that his convictions did not violate double jeopardy protections, and that his sentence was not inappropriate given the nature of the offenses and his character. The court also found that Russell had not been denied due process during his resentencing hearing. View "Russell v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

Dustin Lane, a defendant with a history of violent offenses, was serving a prison sentence for domestic battery against his ex-wife, A.N., when he violated a no-contact order by sending her ten letters. These letters, which ranged in tone from loving and apologetic to critical and accusatory, were seen as part of a cycle of manipulation and abuse. Lane was charged with ten counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy, one for each letter, and pleaded guilty to all counts. The trial court sentenced him to ten 300-day sentences, each to run consecutively, resulting in an aggregate 3,000-day sentence.On appeal, Lane argued that his sentence was inappropriate given the nature of his offenses and his character. The Court of Appeals agreed, finding the sentence inappropriate considering the nature of his offenses, and remanded the case with instructions to impose fully concurrent sentences for an aggregate 300-day term. However, a dissenting judge disagreed, noting Lane's history of violence and the manipulative nature of the letters.The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals. The court noted that Indiana Appellate Rule 7(B) permits reviewing courts to revise a criminal sentence that is “inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender.” The court found that Lane's violent criminal history and the risk he posed of perpetuating the cycle of domestic abuse against A.N. warranted the lengthy sentence. The court affirmed the trial court's decision, emphasizing the importance of protecting victims and the community from offenders with a history of violence. View "Lane v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law

The case involves a civil forfeiture action initiated by the State of Indiana against $11,180 found during a search of Dylan Williams's apartment. Williams did not respond to the State's complaint, but his aunt, Angela Smith, intervened, claiming that she owned the money and that it was not connected to any criminal activity. The State argued that the money was tied to criminal activity, specifically drug offenses, based on its location and the denominations in which it was found. The trial court ruled in favor of the State, leading to an appeal by Smith.The case was initially heard in the Marion Superior Court, where the State seized the money and initiated forfeiture proceedings. After a hearing, the trial court ruled in favor of the State, leading to an appeal by Smith. The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's decision.The case was then reviewed by the Indiana Supreme Court. The court found that the State failed to establish a substantial connection between the seized money and any underlying offense. The court also noted that the State did not identify a specific, applicable offense that would subject the money to forfeiture. Furthermore, the court found that Smith presented uncontradicted evidence that the money belonged to her. The court therefore reversed the trial court's forfeiture order and ruled that the money must be returned to Smith. The court also clarified the procedural framework for when the State seeks forfeiture of money and who constitutes an "owner." View "Smith v. State of Indiana" on Justia Law