Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

Motel was insured under a policy issued by Insurer. The policy provided coverage for, as well as a duty to defend against, claims for bodily injury and personal and advertising injury liability. The policy expressly disclaimed coverage for both bodily injury and personal and advertising injury when the injury arose out of intentional conduct. Specifically, the policy excluded coverage for harm resulting from acts of sexual molestation by motel employees. After an off-duty motel employee molested a young motel guest, Insurer sought a declaratory judgment to enforce its reading of the contract disclaiming coverage for, and its duty to defend against, a civil complaint brought by the motel guest. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of Insurer. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the abuse/molestation exclusion excluded from coverage the act of the employee, as the victim was in the "care" of the motel at the time of the molestation per the language of the exclusion. View "Holiday Hospitality Franchising, Inc. v. Amco Ins. Co." on Justia Law

Defendant pled guilty to receiving stolen property, a felony. While serving her probation term, Defendant was arrested and charged with theft. After an evidentiary hearing, the trial court determined that Defendant had committed four probation violations, including commission of a new criminal offense, and ordered Defendant to serve a portion of her previously suspended sentence. Defendant appealed, contending that the trial court erred by using the probable cause standard rather than the preponderance of the evidence standard in evaluating whether she committed the crime of theft. The Supreme Court vacated the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) the correct burden of proof for a trial court to apply in a probation revocation proceeding is the preponderance of the evidence standard; and (2) because it was unclear which standard the trial court used in this instance, the case was remanded for a new determination of whether Defendant violated the conditions of her probation by a preponderance of the evidence and, if so, the appropriate sanction for such a violation. View "Heaton v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiffs, Katherine and Michael, were living together in a home that was destroyed by a fire in 1998. Seeking to rebuild their home, Michael and Katherine completed an application for property insurance with American Family Mutual Insurance Company. American Family issued the policy. In 2003, Plaintiffs' garage was destroyed in a fire, and Plaintiffs filed a claim with American Family. During follow-up investigations, Michael disclosed the 1998 fire to American Family. American Family, treating the prior fire loss nondisclosure as a misrepresentation, voided the insurance policy ab initio and denied Plaintiffs' claim. Plaintiffs filed suit against American Family claiming breach of contract and intentional infliction of emotional distress. The trial court granted summary judgment for American Family. Plaintiffs appealed, challenging the grant of summary judgment on grounds that American Family failed to return the premiums paid by Plaintiffs. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiffs' assignment of error was not properly before the Court on appeal. View "Dodd v. Am. Family Mut. Ins. Co." on Justia Law

The State charged Defendant with three counts of felony nonsupport of a defendant child. By the time the case went to trial, all three children were adults and emancipated. The trial court found Defendant guilty as charged and ordered him to pay the children's mother, "the victim in the case," the amount of his child-support arrearage. The trial court used the term "restitution" at the sentencing hearing. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions and length of sentence but determined that the court's order for Defendant to pay restitution to the mother as "the victim" was erroneous. The Supreme Court granted transfer and summarily affirmed the court of appeals on all issues but the issue of restitution and held that the trial court was within its discretion to determine that restitution was payable to a custodial parent, despite the fact that the children were emancipated. Remanded. View "Sickels v. State" on Justia Law

A school liaison officer intervened in a hallway scuffle between K.W. and another student. K.W. turned away from the officer's effort to handcuff him. K.W. was subsequently adjudicated delinquent for resisting law enforcement. K.W. appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals reversed, holding that there was insufficient evidence that the officer was "lawfully engaged in the execution of the officer's duties" as a law-enforcement officer. The Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed the trial court, albeit for different reasons than the court of appeals, holding that the evidence did not establish "force" beyond a reasonable doubt, and without evidence of a "forcible" resistance, K.W.'s delinquency adjudication could not be sustained. View "K.W. v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of criminal mischief as a Class B misdemeanor for vandalizing another man's truck. The trial court sentenced Defendant to thirty days executed, 150 days suspended, and 360 days of probation. The court of appeals (1) affirmed Defendant's conviction, concluding it was supported by sufficient evidence, and (2) reversed in part Defendant's sentence and remanded for a redetermination of Defendant's period of probation, not to exceed 185 days, finding that Defendant's sentence was inconsistent with Ind. Code 35-50-3-1(b). The Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the opinion below, holding (1) the evidence was sufficient to support Defendant's conviction; and (2) regardless of the maximum sentence available under Ind. Code. 35-50-3-2 through -4, the combined term of imprisonment and probation for a misdemeanor may not exceed one year. Remanded for imposition of a probationary period not to exceed 335 days - the difference between one year and the thirty days Defendant was ordered to serve in prison. View "Jennings v. State " on Justia Law

Defendant, a North Carolina resident, was charged in Indiana with two counts of non-support of a dependent. After the trial date was set, Defendant's public defender filed a motion to withdraw. The trial court granted the motion to withdraw after Defendant failed to appear for a hearing on the motion. Defendant subsequently failed to appear in court the morning of his trial date, so he was tried in absentia. A jury found him guilty on both counts. Defendant arrived at the courthouse that afternoon and was immediately taken into custody. The Supreme Court vacated Defendant's convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that based on the particular facts and circumstances of this case, the trial court abused its discretion in trying Defendant in absentia, without counsel. View "Hawkins v. State" on Justia Law

When Husband and Wife's marriage was dissolved in 2005, the trial court approved the settlement agreement reached by the parties following mediation. In 2011, Husband sought to modify the agreement. At the evidentiary hearing, the trial court excluded from evidence Husband's testimony regarding statements he claimed to have made to the mediator during mediation. The court subsequently denied Husband's request for modification of his monthly housing payment obligation. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court was correct to exclude Husband's mediation statements from evidence on his petition to modify the parties' settlement agreement; and (2) the trial court correctly rejected Husband's request for modification of his monthly housing payment obligation. View "Horner v. Carter" on Justia Law

After a bench trial, Defendant was found guilty of burglary, adjudicated an habitual offender, and sentenced to twenty-two years imprisonment. The trial court also ordered Defendant to pay restitution to the victim in the amount of $711.95, which reflected the loss of the victim's television set and record collection. The court of appeals reversed the restitution order on grounds there was insufficient evidence to support the amount awarded and declined to remand the case. The Supreme Court granted transfer to address whether the case could be remanded for a new restitution hearing. The Court granted transfer of jurisdiction and remanded to the trial court with instructions to conduct a new restitution hearing at which the State would be permitted to present, and Defendant would be allowed to confront, any additional evidence supporting the victim's property loss. View "Iltzsch v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff's wife died after various physicians failed to diagnose and treat her obstructed bowel. Plaintiff, acting individually and as a personal representative of his wife's estate, filed a medical malpractice complaint against Community Hospitals of Indiana, Inc. (Community). A jury returned a verdict in favor of Plaintiff and awarded damages in the amount of $8.5 million. Community subsequently made an oral motion to reduce the jury awarded to $1.23 million - the cap imposed by the Indiana Medical Malpractice Act (Act). Plaintiff objected to the reduction of the damage award alleging that the cap was unconstitutional and requesting an evidentiary hearing to develop his constitutional challenges. The trial court denied Plaintiff's request and entered judgment in the amount of $1.25 million. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that Plaintiff forfeited his opportunity to conduct an evidentiary hearing to challenge the constitutionality of the Act. View "Plank v. Cmty. Hosps. of Ind., Inc." on Justia Law