Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court ordering state police officers to turn over to federal authorities a shipped box containing U.S. currency wrapped in multiple layers of sealed packaging that bore the odor of narcotics, holding that the totality of the circumstances established the requisite probable cause to believe the money was proceeds of drug trafficking.The shipped box in this case displayed hallmarks of parcels containing drugs and drug money. The officer sought and was granted a warrant authorizing a search of the package and seizure of proceeds of drug trafficking. Officers proceeded to open the box, and a canine alerted that the money contained therein, and not just the packaging surrounding it, contained the odor of narcotics. The officers then seized the cash and obtained a court order to turn it over to federal authorities. Appellant, the individual who shipped the parcel, argued on appeal that the seizure exceeded the scope of the warrant. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) all the circumstances supplied a basis for probable cause to believe the cash was proceeds of drug trafficking; and (2) therefore, the seizure was lawful, and the trial court properly made its order transferring the property to the federal government. View "Hodges v. State" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the verdict of the jury in Plaintiff's favor in this personal injury case, holding that an expert witness's professional licensure status and the reasons for professional discipline may be admissible to challenge the expert's credibility.Plaintiff was rear-ended by Defendant. The expert in this case was a doctor who testified that Plaintiff suffered permanent injury from the automobile accident. The trial court excluded evidence that the expert's medical license had previously been on probation and the reasons for the expert's past professional discipline. The jury found in favor of Plaintiff and awarded $1.3 million in damages. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court abused its discretion when it excluded evidence that the expert's medical license had been on probation, but the error was harmless; and (2) the trial court properly excluded evidence of the reasons for the expert's professional discipline because that evidence was inadmissible under certain evidentiary rules. View "Tunstall v. Manning" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court held that International Business Machines, Corp. (IBM) was entitled to post-judgment interest on its $49.5 million damages award as entered by the trial court and affirmed by this Court in IBM I running from the date of the judgment on remand and not from the date of the original judgment in 2012.This case arose out of a contract entered into between the State, acting on behalf of the Family and Social Services Administration, and IBM to improve Indiana's welfare eligibility system. In IBM I, the Supreme Court determined that IBM materially breached the contract and remanded the matter to the trial court to determine damages and offsets. On remand, the trial court determined that damages to the State from the breach totaled $128 million and IBM was entitled to offsets in the amount of $49.5. Thus, IBM was ordered to pay the State $78.2 million, after offsets. On appeal, IBM argued, among other things, that it was entitled to post-judgment interest on the fees upheld by the Court in IBM I. The court of appeals agreed. The Supreme Court held that the post-judgment interest due to IBM ran from the judgment on remand and summarily affirmed the court of appeals on all other issues. View "International Business Machines Corp. v. State ex rel. Indiana Family & Social Services Administration" on Justia Law

In this Indiana Product Liability Act (IPLA) design-defect case, the Supreme Court held that the the trial court erred in determining that a component-part manufacturer owed no duty, as a matter of law, to install safety features that the injury party alleged were necessary.PACCAR, Inc. was the manufacturer of a glider kit, a component part that becomes an operable semi-truck after a purchaser installs an engine, exhaust system, and transmission. The glider kit has a blind spot behind it, and PACCAR did not include certain safety features to mitigate the danger created by the blind spot unless a customer specifically requested them. A driver backed up a semi with an integrated PACCAR glider kit and stuck and killed a construction foreman. His widow brought a design-defect claim against PACCAR, claiming that the lack of the safety features rendered the glider kit defective. The trial court granted PACCAR's motion for summary judgment, concluding that PACCAR owed no duty to install the safety features because the duly fell solely on the final manufacturer of the completed semi. The Supreme Court reversed and remanded for further proceedings, holding that whether PACCAR owed the decedent a duty to includes the features was a question for the trier of fact. View "Brewer v. PACCAR, Inc." on Justia Law

The Supreme Court granted transfer in this case to eliminate a residual double jeopardy violation not addressed by the court of appeals, holding that one of Defendant's remaining convictions must be reduced to a lesser included offense to eliminate the violation.Defendant was convicted of possession of cocaine, enhanced to a level four felony; possession of a narcotic drug, enhanced to a level five felony; and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and adjudicated a habitual offender. On appeal, Defendant argued that his conviction for firearm possession and the enhancements applied to the drug-related counts violated double jeopardy principles because they were based on the same evidence - his possession of a single firearm. The court of appeals affirmed Defendant's drug-related convictions but reversed and vacated the conviction and sentence for the firearm possession conviction. The Supreme Court held that because Defendant's two drug-related convictions were enhanced based on the same evidence of his possession of a single firearm, Defendant's conviction on possession of a narcotic drug must be remanded for entry of judgment as a level six felony. View "Springfield v. State" on Justia Law

In this municipal-annexation case, the Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court against the Town of Brownsburg, holding that a trial court hearing a remonstrance proceeding on judicial review must consider the evidence submitted by both the municipality and the remonstrators.In 2013, the Town adopted an ordinance to annex 4,462 acres of property adjacent to the Town. A group of affected landowners acting through a political action committee remonstrated, seeking a declaration that the Town did not meet the statutory annexation requirements. The trial court entered judgment for the Remonstrators and against the Town, determining that the Town had not met all statutory requirements for annexing the proposed territory. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) on appellate review, the reviewing court asks not whether the record supports the municipality's decision to enact the annexation ordinance but whether it supports the trial court's decision to uphold or reject the annexation; (2) a trial court assessing the legality of a disputed annexation must equally weigh and balance the evidence submitted by both sides; and (3) the trial court did not satisfy its threshold burden to prove it met the requirements of either Ind. Code 36-4-3-13(b) or (c). View "Town of Brownsburg, Indiana v. Fight Against Brownsburg Annexation" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court dismissing Plaintiff's claims against Indiana-resident defendants without prejudice, holding that the trial court erred in basing its dismissal on lack of personal jurisdiction but that dismissal was nevertheless warranted on the record.The parties in this case entered into an independent contractor agreement that contained a forum-selection clause providing that the parties agreed to litigate their disputes in Texas. Plaintiff later brought suit in an Indiana circuit court alleging breach of contract and fraudulent inducement. Defendants moved to dismiss under Trial Rule 12(B)(2). The court court dismissed the complaint without prejudice, concluding that the Indiana trial court lacked personal jurisdiction over the Indiana-resident defendants because the parties agreed to litigate their dispute in Texas. The Supreme Court affirmed but on different grounds, holding (1) the forum-selection clause was mandatory and unambiguous in requiring that suit be brought in Texas; and (2) Plaintiff failed to satisfy its burden of showing that the clause was invalid. View "O'Bryant v. Adams" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court found that the Honorable Robert W. Freese, Judge of the Hendricks Superior Court 1, engaged in judicial misconduct and ordered that Judge Freese be suspended from the office of judge without pay for forty-five days.The Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications charged that Judge Freese's conduct violated four provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Supreme Court agreed, holding that Judge Freese engaged in judicial misconduct by appointing an unqualified friend as trustee of a trust and personal representative of a related estate, failing to disclose the friendship or a financial relationship with the friend, and failing to act promptly when faced with evidence of the friend's mismanagement and embezzlement of the funds entrusted to him. The Court concluded that a forty-five-day suspension from office was warranted under the circumstances. View "In re Honorable Robert W. Freese" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the decision of the trial court granting Defendant's motion to suppress statements he made during an interrogation as inadmissible in his criminal trial, holding that there was substantial, probative evidence that Defendant was in custody at the time of the interrogation.Two police officers interrogated Defendant in a secured area at a police station without providing him with required Miranda warnings. In granting Defendant's motion to suppress, the trial court determined that the environment in which Defendant was interrogated was a "police setting." The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the totality of the circumstances supported the trial court's conclusion that the interrogation was custodial. View "State v. Ruiz" on Justia Law

The Supreme Court affirmed the trial court's exercise of discretion to reconsider its initial appointment of the decedent's father as special administrator for the decedent's estate, holding that, though not required by statute or trial rule, courts should give notice and hold a hearing before appointing a special administrator or rescinding such an appointment.After Orlando Lewis, Jr. (Junior) died in a car crash, Orlando Lewis Sr. (Senior) was appointed special administrator to Junior's estate. Shana Toliver sought to remove Senior as special administrator of Junior's estate. Kathy Calloway also asked the trial court either to reconsider its appointment of Senior as special administrator or to remove him. The court ordered that it would reconsider and rescind its prior appointment of Senior as special administrator and appoint Toliver and Calloway as co-special administrators for Junior's estate. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the trial court could reconsider its prior appointment of Senior because the underlying matter was still pending; (2) the trial court did not abuse its discretion in reconsidering its appointment of Senior; and (3) an appointing or rescinding court should notify interested parties and hold a hearing. View "Lewis v. Toliver" on Justia Law