Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

After a bench trial, Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder and of being a serious violent felon in possession of a firearm. After a separate sentencing phase, the trial court sentenced Defendant to serve two life sentences without parole consecutively. After a subsequent sentencing hearing, the trial court imposed an additional twenty-year sentence for the firearm possession conviction, also to run consecutively. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in imposing consecutive life sentences; and (2) the trial court’s sentencing order was inadequate, but Defendant’s sentence was proper. View "Clippinger v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent (ACE) of 0.08 or more. At trial, the judge instructed the jury to presume Defendant’s ACE at the time of the offense based on a chemical test that was performed within three hours of his being stopped by law enforcement. The instruction told the jury it “shall presume,” yet also stated that “the presumption is rebuttable.” Defendant appealed, arguing that the instruction amounted to fundamental error because it improperly relieved the State of its burden to prove each element beyond a reasonable doubt. The Court of Appeals agreed and reversed Defendant’s conviction, concluding that the instruction did not make clear that the presumption was merely permissible. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thus vacating the opinion below, and affirmed, holding that the instruction did not unconstitutionally shift the State’s burden of proof in violation of Defendant’s due process rights. View "Pattison v. State" on Justia Law

Thomas Hale appealed his conviction for dealing in methamphetamine, on the sole grounds that the trial court abused its discretion in failing to grant him, at public expense, depositions of two State’s witnesses. After review, the Indiana Supreme Court found that prior precedent compelled the Court to agree with Hale and reverse his conviction. The Court took the opportunity of this case to provide guidance as to how trial courts should address such motions in the future. View "Hale v. Indiana" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of four traffic offenses related to his driving while intoxicated and his lack of a driver’s license. Defendant’s trial took place almost three years after his arrest. On appeal, Defendant argued that the trial court erred in denying his Ind. R. Crim. P. 4(C) motion for discharge for delay. Rule 4(C) provides that a defendant may not be held to answer a criminal charge for greater than one year except in certain circumstances. The Supreme Court reversed the denial of Defendant’s motion for discharge, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, Defendant was entitled to discharge pursuant to Rule 4(C). Remanded to the trial court to grant the motion pursuant to Rule 4(C). View "Allen v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of domestic battery as a level 6 felony and battery as a level 6 felony. The level 6 battery conviction arose from Defendant’s assault on a woman whose brother had previously been married to Defendant’s aunt. The trial court sentenced Defendant to two years for each conviction to be served consecutively. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s judgment with respect to Defendant’s level 6 battery conviction, holding that the sister of a brother who was once married to Defendant’s aunt is not a “family or household” member within the meaning of the statute elevating misdemeanor battery to a level 6 felony. Remanded. View "Suggs v. State" on Justia Law

Appellant pleaded guilty to two counts of murder, one count of class A felony robbery, and one count of class B felony burglary for crimes he committed when he was thirteen years old. Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of 170 years imprisonment. Beginning in 1991, Appellant attempted to obtain his trial court transcripts to prepare a petition for post-conviction relief (PCR), but his requests were denied until 2006 when the trial court ultimately granted Appellant’s request for transcripts. When he still had not received the transcript of the plea hearing, he withdrew his post-conviction relief petition. In 2010, Appellant moved to compel compliance with the trial court’s order for transcripts, but the trial court denied the petition because Appellant’s PCR petition had been withdrawn. In 2011, Appellant again filed a pro se PCR petition. In 2015, Appellant filed a petition for permission to file a belated appeal. The trial court denied the petition. Appellant now asked the Supreme Court to permit him to file a belated notice of appeal to appeal his sentence. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that, under the unique circumstances of this case, Appellant should be permitted to file a belated notice of appeal. View "Sanford v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of dealing in a narcotic drug within 1,000 feet of school property, a class A felony, and of being a habitual substance offender. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) Defendant’s claim that he was a victim of “sentencing factor manipulation” was unavailing because “sentencing factor manipulation” was inapplicable to the charges against him; (2) Defendant waived his claim that the jury verdict was not unanimous; (3) the trial court did not err in admitting redacted letters Defendant wrote to potential witnesses from prison; (4) there was sufficient evidence to support the conviction; and (5) the trial court was within its discretion in ordering Defendant to serve a sentence of forty years for felony dealing. View "Bowman v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was charged with two D-felony counts of strangulation and two counts of domestic battery, one of which was elevated to a D-felony based on a prior domestic battery conviction. Defendant moved to bifurcate the D-felony domestic battery charge. The jury found Defendant guilty of the misdemeanor domestic battery and not guilty of the strangulation charges. The judge then asked Defendant’s counsel whether Defendant would like to waive his right to a jury trial on the D-felony domestic battery charge. Defendant remained silent while his attorney told the judge that Defendant intended to proceed as a bench trial on the second phase of the bifurcated trial. After a bench trial on the second phase Defendant was found guilty of the D-felony domestic battery. Defendant appealed, arguing that he did not validly waive his state and federal constitutional jury trial rights. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s conviction for D-felony domestic battery, holding that the trial court committed fundamental error by proceeding to trial absent personal waiver of his constitutional jury trial right by Defendant himself. Remanded for a new trial. View "Horton v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was found guilty of battery as a class A misdemeanor. Under the provisions of Ind. Code 35-38-1-7.7(a), the trial court also determined that Defendant committed a crime of “domestic violence,” which determination rendered Defendant ineligible to possess a firearm. Defendant appealed, arguing, in part, that the firearm restriction amounted to additional punishment above the statutory maximum for misdemeanor battery, and because the facts supporting the enhancement were not submitted to a jury, the determination violated Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was no violation of Defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury; and (2) the evidence was sufficient to sustain the determination that Defendant committed a crime of domestic violence. View "Hitch v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant pleaded guilty to murdering Stephanie Kirk. Following a sentencing hearing, the trial court sentenced Defendant to death. Defendant appealed his death sentence. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) there was sufficient evidence to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Defendant murdered Kirk while committing criminal deviate conduct; (2) the trial court did not commit fundamental error when it allowed the State to amend the charging information; (3) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in weighing the aggravating and mitigating circumstances in sentencing Defendant to death; and (4) Defendant’s sentence was not inappropriate in light of the nature of his offense and what the record revealed about his character. View "Gibson v. State" on Justia Law