Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court overruling Defendant's motion to suppress evidence obtained during the search of his vehicle, holding that law enforcement officers do not violate either the state or federal constitution by searching a person's vehicle when the person drives that vehicle up to his house while officers are executing a search warrant for the house that does not address vehicles.In his motion to suppress, Defendant argued that the law enforcement in his case exceeded the scope of the search warrant by searching his vehicle, which was not mentioned in the warrant. The trial court denied the motion. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the general premises warrant permitting law enforcement's search of Defendant's home also supported law enforcement's search of Defendant's vehicle, and therefore, the search did not violate the Fourth Amendment; and (2) the search of Defendant's vehicle did not violate Ind. Const. art. I, 11 because it was reasonable based on the totality of the circumstances. View "Hardin v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court holding Defendant in contempt when Defendant refused to unlock her iPhone for a detective, holding that forcing Defendant to unlock her iPhone would violate her Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination.The State charged Defendant of several offenses. When Defendant was placed under arrest, law enforcement took her iPhone. Believing it contained incriminating evidence, a detective got a warrant ordering Defendant to unlock her iPhone. When Defendant refused, the trial court held her in contempt. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) allowing the State to force Defendant to unlock her iPhone for law enforcement would provide law enforcement with information it did not already know, which the State could use in its prosecution against her; and (2) this result is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment's protection from compelled self-incrimination. View "Seo v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court remanded this case to the court of appeals to consider the viability of each of Plaintiffs' claims presented in the pleadings, holding that the court of appeals improperly failed to address the viability of each claim.Plaintiffs, thirty-six women, filed a product liability suit against Bayer Corporation and some related entities (collectively, Bayer), alleging that Bayer violated Indiana's Product Liability act and other state and federal laws in relation to a medical device that Bayer manufactured. Bayer moved for judgment on the pleadings under Indiana Rule of Trial Procedure 12(C). The trial court denied the motion, and the court of appeals affirmed. The court of appeals, however, addressed only the legal viability of one claim rather than all of Plaintiffs' claims. The Supreme Court remanded the case to the court of appeals to consider the viability of each of Plaintiffs' claims, holding that the court was required to address the viability of each claim presented under Rule 12(C). View "Bayer Corp. v. Leach" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court awarding attorney's fees to Defendants in this dispute over the proposed construction of seven billboards, holding that the trial court's decision to award attorney's fees was an abuse of discretion.River Ridge Development Authority (RRDA) sued Defendants seeking a declaration that seven billboards that were set to be constructed near the planned entrance of RRDA's $25 million expansion to The River Ridge Commerce Center violated the Town of Utica's zoning ordinance. During the litigation, the relevant portion of the road along which the billboards were to be constructed was approved to become a scenic byway. Thereafter, RRDA voluntarily dismissed its complaint with prejudice. Defendants filed motions to recover attorney's fees, claiming that RRDA's behavior during litigation justified such an award. The trial court granted the motions in full. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) on the record, Defendants failed to show that any exception to the American Rule requiring each party to pay its own attorney's fees applied; and (2) therefore, the trial court abused its discretion in awarding attorney's fees. View "River Ridge Development Authority v. Outfront Media, LLC" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the trial court denying Defendant's request to file a belated notice of appeal of his twelve-year sentence, holding that the general waiver of Defendant's "right to appeal" was insufficiently explicit to establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of Defendant's right to appeal his sentence.Defendant pleaded guilty to Level 4 felony dealing in methamphetamine and was sentenced to the maximum term of twelve years incarceration. Defendant did not timely file a notice of appeal. Defendant later sought permission to file a belated notice of appeal, arguing that he was only recently made aware of his right to appeal his sentence. The trial court denied Defendant's request. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the general waiver of Defendant's "right to appeal," particularly when contained in the same sentence as an unenforceable waiver of post-conviction relief, was insufficient to establish a knowing and voluntary waiver of Defendant's right to appeal his sentence. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court revised Defendant's sentence for three counts of level 3 felony rape but otherwise affirmed the court of appeals' decision affirming Defendant's convictions and sentence, holding that exceeding the sentence the prosecutor recommended in this case, absent more significant aggravating factors, was inappropriate.Defendant's convictions arose from his having sexual intercourse with K.S. when she was between twenty-one and twenty-three years old. At issue was whether K.S., who was moderately intellectually handicapped, could legally consent to sex with Defendant. After a mistrial, a second jury convicted Defendant of three counts of rape. The prosecutor recommended that the court impose the advisory sentence of nine years for each of the three counts. The trial court instead sentenced Defendant to enhanced consecutive sentences of twelve years on each count. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's sentence to twenty-seven years, holding that the longer imposed sentence was inappropriate under the circumstances of this case. View "Jackson v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed Defendant's guilty but mentally ill (GBMI) conviction to find him not guilty of reason of insanity (NGRI), holding that the State presented insufficient demeanor evidence with which to rebut the unanimous expert opinion and evidence of Payne's history of mental illness.In 2005, Defendant confessed to burning down two bridges and attempting to burn another. Defendant spent most of his life under psychiatric care for chronic paranoid schizophrenia and delusional disorder. The trial court found Defendant incompetent to stand trial until 2016. At his jury trial, Defendant asserted the insanity defense. Three mental health experts concluded that Defendant was unable to distinguish right from wrong. Nevertheless, the jury rejected the insanity defense and found Defendant GMBI on all counts. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed the GBMI conviction to find Defendant NGRI, holding that the well-documented and consistent history of Defendant's mental illness, along with the unanimous expert opinion, leads to the conclusion that Defendant was insane when the crimes were committed. View "Payne v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court vacated the trial court's grant of summary judgment for Defendants, holding that the trial court erred by entering summary judgment for defendant health-insurance plans, which were governed by the Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974 (ERISA), based on ERISA preemption.Plaintiff, a health-care provider, contracted with two third-party networks. Defendants and its affiliated employee health-insurance plans contacted with both health networks. Seven patients received treatments from Plaintiff, and the patients were covered under Defendants' plans. Plaintiff sued Defendants, alleging that they failed to pay agreed reimbursement rates for covered services under their plans. The trial court granted summary judgment against Plaintiff, concluding that Plaintiff's claims were preempted under ERISA's conflict-preemption provision, 29 U.S.C. 1144(a). The Supreme Court vacated the judgment, holding that genuine issues of disputed fact existed concerning the central issue of whether the provider's claims were denied coverage under the plans or whether the provider's claims necessitated interpreting the plan documents. View "FMS Nephrology Partners North Central Indiana Dialysis Centers, LLC v. Meritain Health, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that Respondent, the Attorney General of Indiana, committed acts of misdemeanor battery, conduct that violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d), and that Respondent should be suspended for thirty days with automatic reinstatement.The Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission filed a disciplinary complaint against Respondent alleging that his conduct at a local bar involving various forms of nonconsensual and inappropriate touching violated Indiana Professional Conduct Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d). A hearing officer found that Respondent violated the rules and recommended that Respondent be suspended for at least sixty days without automatic reinstatement. The Supreme Court concluded that Respondent violated Rules 8.4(b) and 8.4(d) and suspended Respondent from the practice of law for a period of thirty days. View "In the Matter of Curtis T. Hill, Jr." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the juvenile court finding that R.L. was a child in need of services (CHINS), holding that the Department of Child Services (DCS) should have been barred from filing a successive CHINS action after the initial CHINS petition was dismissed with prejudice.In 2017, DCS filed a petition alleging that R.S. was a CHINS. The juvenile court determined R.L. was not a CHINS and dismissed the action with prejudice. In 2018, DCS filed a subsequent petition alleging R.L. was a CHINS. Mother moved to dismiss the petition on claim preclusion grounds. The juvenile court denied the motion and found R.L. was a CHINS. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Mother's motion to dismiss should have been granted because, under the framework of Matter of Eq.W., 124 N.E.3d 1201 (Ind. 2019), the subsequent petition filed by DCS should have been barred by the doctrine of claim preclusion. View "R.L. v. Indiana Department of Child Services & Child Advocates, Inc." on Justia Law