Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Defendant was convicted of murder, rape, and criminal deviate conduct. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant next sought post-conviction relief, asserting that his appellate counsel's failure to challenge the refusal of a tendered instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt rendered harmless any potential error in refusing the tendered instruction that "where proof of guilt is by circumstantial evidence only, it must be so conclusive...as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence." The Supreme Court rejected Defendant's claim of post-conviction court error but granted transfer to provide clarification regarding the "reasonable theory of innocence" instruction, as the Court disagreed with the court of appeals that the giving of a conventional reasonable doubt instruction rendered unnecessary the giving of a reasonable theory of innocence instruction. View "Hampton v. State" on Justia Law

After pulling over a vehicle for speeding, a law enforcement officer arrested the driver and passenger and, upon searching the vehicle, discovered a jar of marijuana sitting on the floorboard of the passenger seat. The trial court found the passenger (Passenger) guilty of possessing marijuana. The trial judge also suspended Passenger's driver's license and registration under Ind. Code 35-48-4-15(a), believing that the driver's license suspension statute left her no discretion in the matter even though Passenger was not driving the vehicle. At issue on appeal was whether an automotible passenger riding down the highway with a jar of marijuana between his legs can be found to have "used the vehicle" in committing the offense of possessing marijuana pursuant to section 35-48-4-15(a). The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, holding (1) Passenger used the vehicle in committing the offense of possessing marijuana; and (2) the trial court properly ordered Passenger's driver's license, registration, and ability to register other vehicles suspended, as the statute left the court no discretion in the matter. View "Adams v. State" on Justia Law

While driving a sedan, Carol Shipley rear-ended Reginald Person's eighteen-wheeler. Person sued Shipley for injuries that he claimed he had sustained in the accident. During trial, the trial court admitted testimony of two experts retained by Shipley that opined that it was unlikely the accident caused Person's injuries. The jury later returned a defense verdict in favor of Shipley and awarded no damages to Person. Person appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it permitted Shipley's experts to testify that Person's lower-back injury was not likely caused by the rear-ending accident because the impact on Person's truck was minimal. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the experts' testimony under Ind. R. Evid. 702 and in finding (1) the experts were qualified to offer their opinions, and (2) the experts' opinions were based on reliable scientific principles that could be applied to the facts at issue. View "Person v. Shipley" on Justia Law

While operating a truck, Henry Bennett rear-ended John Richmond's vehicle. Richmond and his wife sued Bennett for injuries Richmond sustained in the collision. During trial, a psychologist testified that Richmond experienced a traumatic brain injury in the accident. The jury returned a judgment in favor of Richmond. Bennett appealed, contending that the trial court erred when it admitted the psychologist's causation testimony. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's judgment, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the psychologist's causation testimony under Ind. R. Evid. 702 where (1) the psychologist was qualified to offer his opinion as to the cause of Richmond's brain injury, and (2) the psychologist's testimony was based on reliable scientific principles that could be applied to the facts at issue. View "Bennett v. Richmond" on Justia Law

Pursuant to a plea agreement, Antoine Hill pleaded guilty to one count of Class A felony attempted murder and two counts of Class C felony attempted battery. Hill did not appeal. Hill's counsel subsequently filed a Post-Convcition Rule 2 petition, seeking permission to file a belated notice of appeal. The trial court denied permission, and counsel did not timely appeal this denial. Thereafter, Hill, through different counsel, filed a Post-Conviction Rule 1 petition, alleging that his Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel was ineffective for failing to timely appeal the trial court's denial of permission to file a belated notice of appeal. The trial court denied the petition, concluding that Hill could not satisfy the ineffective-assistance-of-counsel test set forth in Strickland v. Washington. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the appropriate standard for judging the performance of Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel is the standard set forth in Baum v. State; and (2) Post-Conviction Rule 2 counsel in this case did not violate Baum because she represented Hill in a procedurally fair setting that resulted in a judgment of the court. View "Hill v. State" on Justia Law

Robin Everhart filed suit against the Indiana Patient's Compensation Fund (PCF) to recover excess damages after settling a wrongful death claim against an emergency room physician in whose care her husband died. The PCF asked the trial court to reduce its award of damages to account for the twenty percent change that Robin's husband would have died anyway, even in the absence of the physician's negligence. The trial court declined to do so, awarding Robin the statutory maximum of $1 million in excess damages. The Supreme Court affirmed but on slightly different grounds, holding that the PCF was required to pay the statutory maximum in excess damages and was not entitled to a set-off because of how the trial court's peculiar findings of fact interacted with the rules for calculating a set-off. View "Ind. Dep't of Ins. v. Everhart" on Justia Law

In 2008, Chrysler offered a buyout program to employees in Kokomo, Indiana. Those employees then applied for unemployment benefits under Indiana's Unemployment Compensation Act. The Indiana Department of Workforce Development denied the claims. The Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development ultimately awarded benefits under a narrow provision of the Act. The court of appeals reversed, holding that the Board's application of the provision was erroneous and inconsistent with the statute. The Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the court of appeals. The Court then affirmed the decision of the Board, holding that the Board properly applied the law to its findings of fact, and the Board's conclusion that the employees were eligible for benefits was reasonable in light of the evidence before it. View "Chrysler Group, LLC v. Review Bd. of the Dep't of Workforce Dev." on Justia Law

After an automobile collision in which Travis Becker struck Rickey Whitaker, Whitaker filed suit for personal injuries. Thereafter, Whitaker's lawyer ignored repeated requests to provide information about his client's medical treatment, responded only after the trial court ordered him to do so, and then supplied false and misleading information in a way that damaged Becker's ability to ascertain the facts necessary to litigate the case. Becker's counsel filed a motion for sanctions. The trial court found that Whitaker and his lawyer had acted in bad faith and dismissed the case. The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court, holding that the court acted within its discretion in making it clear to counsel that this type of behavior was unacceptable. View "Whitaker v. Becker" on Justia Law

A.T. was adjudicated delinquent for an act that would be felony murder if committed by an adult, and the juvenile court ordered both a determinate and an indeterminate commitment to the department of correction. A.T. appealed his determinate commitment only, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court's dispositional order, holding that because A.T. did not meet the criteria of Ind. Code 31-37-19-9(b), which provides that a determinate commitment may be imposed for juveniles who are sex or violent offenders, a determinate commitment under that section should not have been imposed. Remanded with instructions to vacate the portion of the court's order committing A.T. to the department of correction until his eighteenth birthday. View "A.T. v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff sued Defendants, a doctor and hospital, for medical malpractice. Defendants filed motions for a preliminary determination requesting that the trial court dismiss the complaint due to Plaintiff's dilatory conduct. The trial court denied the request. The court of appeals (1) determined that the trial court's order was a final judgment, and (2) affirmed the trial court's order as to the hospital but reversed as to the doctor. The Supreme Court granted transfer and dismissed the appeal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, holding that the trial court's order was not a final appealable judgment because it did not dispose of all claims as to all parties and because the trial court's order did not contain the "magic language" of Ind. R. App. P. 2(H)(2). View "Ramsey v. Moore" on Justia Law