Justia Indiana Supreme Court Opinion Summaries

In 1998, Appellant committed child molesting in Indiana. Appellant was released in 2006 and completed parole the next year. In 2009, Appellant moved to Iowa, where he was subject to a registration requirement. When Appellant moved back to Indiana in 2013, the State notified him that he was required to register as a sex offender. Appellant sought removal from the registry. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant argued that because he committed his offense six years prior to the passage of Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA), application of SORA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was already under an obligation to register in another jurisdiction and Ind. Code 11-8-8-5(b)(1) and -19(f) do not impose any additional punishment on him, there was no ex post facto violation. View "Ammons v. State" on Justia Law

In 1998, Appellant committed child molesting in Indiana. Appellant was released in 2006 and completed parole the next year. In 2009, Appellant moved to Iowa, where he was subject to a registration requirement. When Appellant moved back to Indiana in 2013, the State notified him that he was required to register as a sex offender. Appellant sought removal from the registry. The trial court denied the motion. On appeal, Appellant argued that because he committed his offense six years prior to the passage of Indiana’s Sex Offender Registry Act (SORA), application of SORA to him violated the Ex Post Facto Clause of the Indiana Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that because Appellant was already under an obligation to register in another jurisdiction and Ind. Code 11-8-8-5(b)(1) and -19(f) do not impose any additional punishment on him, there was no ex post facto violation. View "Ammons v. State" on Justia Law

Plaintiff fell and injured herself when she stepped into a hole on one of the streets in Beech Grove City, Indiana. Plaintiff subsequently filed a negligence complaint against the City. The City asserted that it was immune from liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act’s (ITCA) discretionary function immunity provision. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that, based on a review of the designated evidence and the Court’s existing precedent, the City was not entitled to summary judgment on the question of discretionary function immunity under the ITCA because the City did not demonstrate that the challenged act or omission was a policy decision made by consciously balancing risks and benefits. View "City of Beech Grove v. Beloat" on Justia Law

In 2013, Defendant was charged with second degree murder for the death of a toddler that occurred in 1977. During a bench trial, the court admitted into evidence an autopsy report. The autopsy was performed by a pathologist who was unavailable to testify at trial. In addition to the autopsy report, the State called a forensic pathologist to testify regarding his independent opinion of the child’s death and injuries based on the autopsy report. The trial court found Defendant guilty of second degree murder. Defendant was sentenced to life imprisonment under the relevant sentencing statutes in 1977. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) because the autopsy report was not testimonial, Defendant’s confrontation right was not violated when the report was admitted into evidence or when the surrogate pathologist testified regarding the information detailed in the autopsy report; (2) the delay between the murder of the child and Defendant’s prosecution did not violate Defendant’s due process rights; and (3) even if the trial court erred at sentencing by taking into consideration the current sentencing scheme that was inapplicable in this case, the error was harmless. View "Ackerman v. State" on Justia Law

Defendant was arrested for suspected murder. During Defendant’s pre-interrogation with his lawyer, police officers and a prosecutor eavesdropped as Defendant and his attorney discussed the location of evidence and defense trial strategy. Defendant was charged with murder. The officers involved in the investigation invoked the Fifth Amendment in response to all questions related to the eavesdropping, thus preventing Defendant and the court from learning the identity of the eavesdroppers and what they had overhead. Before trial, the trial court ordered blanket suppression of trial testimony from any witness who pleaded the Fifth. The State appealed the blanket suppression ruling. The Court of Appeals reversed the pretrial blanket suppression. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thereby vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, holding that prospectively imposing blanket suppression of all testimony from witnesses pleading the Fifth Amendment is inappropriate because a presumption of prejudice, rebuttable only by proof beyond a reasonable doubt, adequately protects Defendant from prejudice caused by the officers’ eavesdropping and their assertion of the Fifth Amendment privilege. Remanded for a determination as to whether the State has proven beyond a reasonable doubt an independent source for each presumptively tainted witness’s testimony without implicating the witness’s Fifth Amendment privilege and without derogating Defendant’s right of confrontation. View "State v. Taylor" on Justia Law

Defendant was convicted of class B felony dealing in methamphetamine (by delivery) (Counts I and II), one count of class B felony dealing in methamphetamine (by manufacture) (Count III), and one count of class D felony possession of precursors with intent to manufacture methamphetamine (Count IV). The sentences for Counts III and IV were imposed to run concurrently with each other but consecutive to the sentences on Counts I and II. Defendant received an aggregate sentence of thirty-two years. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court reversed Defendant’s sentences on Counts III and IV to run concurrently with his sentences on Counts I and II, for an aggregate sentence of sixteen years, holding that, under the particular circumstances of this case, the aggregate sentence of thirty-two years was inappropriate. View "Eckelbarger v. State" on Justia Law

In 2014, the General Assembly enacted Ind. Code 3-11-1.5-3.4 (the Statute), which created a Small Precinct Committee in Lake County and directed it to identify precincts with 500 active voters or fewer that may be amenable to consolidation. This measure was intended to reduce the cost of election administration in a county that contains more than fifteen percent of the State’s small precincts. Several precinct committeepersons sought declaratory judgment and an injunction, asserting that the Statute violated the State Constitution. The trial court concluded that the Statute is an impermissible special law and a violation of separation of powers principles. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) the Statute is constitutionally permissible special legislation; and (2) the Statute does not offend Indiana’s separation of powers clause. View "State v. Buncich" on Justia Law

The State and International Business Machines, Corp. (IBM) entered into a ten-year, $1.3 billion Master Services Agreement (MSA) to modernize and improve Indiana’s welfare eligibility system. The State terminated the MSA in less than three years, stating that performance issues on the part of IBM constituted a material breach of the MSA. Both parties sued each other for breach of contract. The trial court determined that the State failed to prove that IBM materially breached the MSA. The Supreme Court reversed the trial court’s finding that IBM did not materially breach the MSA, holding that, under the circumstances of this case, IBM’s collective breaches were material in light of the MSA as a whole. View "State v. Int’l Bus. Machines Corp." on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendant was convicted of murdering four people. Defendant was sentenced to life without parole for each of the four counts of murder, with the sentences to run consecutively. On appeal, Defendant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to convict him of four murders. This appeal came directly to the Supreme Court because a sentence of life without parole was imposed. The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding that the State presented ample evidence that Defendant committed the four murders. View "Sallee v. State" on Justia Law

After a jury trial, Defendants, a married couple, were each convicted of involuntary manslaughter. After they were sentenced, Defendants filed a motion to correct error seeking a mistrial based on one juror’s affidavit describing the conduct of an alternate juror during the jury’s deliberations. The trial court denied the motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed the convictions. The Supreme Court granted transfer, consolidated the cases, and reversed the convictions, holding (1) the juror’s affidavit established that the alternate juror’s participation in jury deliberations was an external influence that pertained to the case, which showings resulted in a presumption of prejudice to Defendants; and (2) the State did not rebut the presumption by showing that the jury was nonetheless impartial, and therefore, a new trial is required. Remanded. View "Wahl v. State" on Justia Law