Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the court of appeals affirming the trial court's denial of Appellant's post-conviction petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal, holding that the appeal should be allowed to proceed.In 1999, Appellant pleaded guilty to burglary, robbery, rape, and criminal confinement, all felonies. In 2021, Appellant filed a petition for post-conviction relief seeking to file a belated notice of appeal under Rule 2 and claiming that when he signed his guilty plea there was no advisement that he had the right to appeal his sentence and that he did not learn of his ability to appeal until that that year. The trial court denied the petition without holding an evidentiary hearing, and the court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Appellant was not at fault in failing to file a timely notice of appeal and was diligent in pursuing his belated notice of appeal. View "Leshore v. State" on Justia Law

In this interlocutory appeal, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the criminal court entering an order in limine excluding from evidence the juvenile court's order in a child in need of services (CHINS) proceedings, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the CHINS order.The Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging that E.H., who was less than fourteen years old, was a CHINS. The juvenile court denied the petition after a fact-finding hearing. After further investigation, the State charged Defendant with Level 5 felony battery resulting in bodily injury to E.H. When Defendant sought to introduce at trial the CHINS order as evidence that someone else likely injured E.H. the State filed a motion to exclude that evidence in limine. The trial court granted the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding the CHINS order under the circumstances of this case. View "Means v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction of involuntary manslaughter, holding that the trial court violated Ind. Trial Rule 47(D) by denying defense counsel the opportunity to voir dire prospective jurors directly and that the error was not harmless.As the State acknowledged at oral argument, the parties agreed at the time of this opinion, that the trial court violated Trial Rule 47(D) during voir dire when it prohibited defense counsel from questioning prospective jurors directly. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's conviction and remanded the case for a new trial, holding (1) the trial court went beyond setting reasonable limits on voir dire; and (2) the error was not harmless. View "Doroszko v. Indiana" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that Respondent, the Honorable Jeffrey F. Meade, Judge of the Gibson Circuit Court, engaged in judicial misconduct and that his misconduct warranted a seven-day unpaid suspension from office.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications filed a complaint against Respondent, charging that Respondent engaged in judicial misconduct by making intemperate comments from the bench, holding an off-the-record and unrecorded child-in-need-of-services hearing, and by failing to provide all parties to the proceedings with sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard. The Supreme Court agreed that Respondent's misconduct violated several provisions of the Indiana Code of Judicial Conduct and that the misconduct was prejudicial to the administration of justice. View "In re Meade" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the murder of her ten-year-old stepdaughter, S.C., and her sentence of life without parole, holding that the State sufficiently carried its evidentiary burden to disprove the existence of "sudden heat" because of a lack of adequate provocation, accompanied by a sustained cooling-off period.At issue was whether the State failed to satisfy its evidentiary burden in negating the mitigating factor of "sudden heat," the necessary condition to reduce Defendant's conviction to voluntary manslaughter. The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction and life-without-parole sentence, holding that the State satisfied its evidentiary burden in negating the mitigating factor and voluntary manslaughter requirement of sudden heat. View "Carmack v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals reversing the decision of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission approving Southern Indiana Gas and Electric Company's (Vectren) petition for approval of its new instantaneous netting method determining the amount of credit its customers receive for their excess distributed generation of electricity, holding that there was no error.Acting within its expertise and authority, the Commission approved Vectren's petition seeking approval of a tariff (Rider EDG) rate for the procurement of excess distributed generation. The Commission approved the Rider EDG, finding that the instantaneous netting method was consistent with Ind. Code 8-1-40-5. The court of appeals reversed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Commission properly held that Vectren's instantaneous netting method was not contrary to law and satisfied the requirements in Ind. Code Ann. 8-1-40-5. View "Ind. Office of Utility Consumer Counselor v. Southern Indiana Gas & Electric Co." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the order of the trial court, after a hearing, finding B.N. to be severely disabled and to be in need of extended custody, care, and treatment, holding that the trial court abused its discretion, but the error was harmless.B.N. requested to appear at her commitment hearing in person, but the trial court denied the request, stating, "we're proceeding remotely due to the COVID-19 pandemic." On appeal, B.N. argued that the trial court's denial of her request for in-person hearing violated Administrative Rule 14 and constitutional and statutory provisions. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court did not make the requisite findings of good cause to conduct B.N.'s commitment hearing virtually; but (2) the trial court's error was harmless. View "In re Civil Commitment of B.N." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's convictions for murder and two counts of attempted murder, holding that the jury permissibly resolved the issues of fact raised on appeal against Defendant.On appeal, Defendant argued that the evidence did not support his convictions because the jury could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was the shooter at issue. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the State presented sufficient evidence to identify Defendant as the shooter; (2) the doubts Defendant raised about the evidence presented factual disputes that the jury was entitled to resolve; and (3) the jury could reasonably have resolved an inconsistency in the evidence in the State's favor. View "Young v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the superior court dismissing this action under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6) but modified the judgment to reflect that the dismissal was without prejudice, holding that the church-autonomy doctrine applied in this case and required its dismissal under Rule 12(B)(6).Plaintiff sued the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc., asserting intentional interference with his contract and employment with Cathedral High School. The Archdiocese moved to the dismiss the complaint and invoked three defenses under the First Amendment, including the church-autonomy defense. The trial court dismissed the case with prejudice for failure to state a claim and for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that dismissal under Rule 12(B)(1) was improper but that the church-autonomy doctrine barred Plaintiff's claims. View "Payne-Elliott v. Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Indianapolis, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's convictions for several drug-related offenses, holding that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during a search of Defendant's home.Officer Cody Scott was investigating a robbery when he detained Defendant for an outstanding warrant for his arrest. The officer asked Defendant if he would escort him inside the house, and Defendant agreed to the request. After Officer Scott observed possible narcotics in the residence he obtained a search warrant, the execution of which revealed various drug paraphernalia. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's convictions, holding that the trial court did not abuse its discretion by denying Defendant's motion to suppress. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Defendant's protections under Pirtle v. State, 323 N.E.2d 634 (Ind. 1975), were violated in this case, and therefore, the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence obtained during the search. View "McCoy v. State" on Justia Law