_(cropped).jpg?width=900)
Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Berry v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-06-20 · cited 10×
In Berry v. State, the defendant was convicted after a bench trial of assaulting a man with a hammer at a renovation site; he raised an insanity defense, arguing that his long-term alcohol abuse had caused a mental disease or defect known as settled insanity that prevented him from appreciating the wrongfulness of his conduct. The trial court rejected the defense, finding that Berry's actions resulted from voluntary intoxication rather than a qualifying mental illness, based in part on expert testimony regarding malingering and embellished symptoms. The Court of Appeals reversed, but the Indiana Supreme Court reinstated the trial court's ruling. The core reasoning was that credible expert evidence supported the conclusion that Berry's behavior stemmed from voluntary alcohol abuse and not from a mental disease or defect under Indiana's insanity statute, making it unnecessary to address whether he could appreciate the wrongfulness of his actions.
criminal law
Nicholson v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-03-21 · cited 63×
This case involved Rodney Nicholson’s conviction for stalking under Indiana Code section 35-45-10-5(a) based on hundreds of graphic, harassing phone calls to a family over six months in 2006 followed by one similar call in 2008 after his release from prison. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s judgment and reversed the Court of Appeals, which had held that the twenty-two-month gap between contacts could not constitute repeated or continuing harassment. The court reasoned that the statutory definition of stalking requires no fixed timeframe, that the gap resulted largely from Nicholson’s incarceration for the 2006 conduct, and that the calls formed a single course of conduct that caused the victims terror. The court also held that evidence of Nicholson’s 2006 voyeurism conviction was admissible because it was inextricably linked to the 2008 call.
criminal law
White v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-03-20 · cited 18×
In White v. State, the defendant was convicted of theft and receiving stolen property after taking a cash register from a restaurant and was also found to be a habitual offender based on two prior out-of-state felony convictions from when he was fifteen. The trial court had allowed a late filing of the habitual-offender charge, and the jury determined the prior convictions supported the enhancement, leading to a sentence that included a four-and-a-half-year increase. On appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court held that the defendant failed to preserve his challenge to the late habitual-offender filing by not moving for a continuance. The court also ruled that the authenticated and certified documents from the prior cases were sufficient evidence for the jury to find two unrelated adult felony convictions. The court vacated the receiving-stolen-property conviction on double-jeopardy grounds but upheld the habitual-offender enhancement and remanded accordingly.
criminal lawprocedure
Hardy v. Hardy
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-03-14 · cited 12×
This case involved a dispute over life insurance proceeds from a federal employee benefit plan after the insured's death. Following his first divorce, a court decree required Carlos Hardy to maintain his FEGLI policy with his ex-wife Phyllis and their grandchildren as equal beneficiaries, but he later designated his second wife Mary Jo as the sole beneficiary and increased coverage. After Carlos's death, Phyllis and the grandchildren sued for the proceeds via equitable claims, but the trial court granted summary judgment to Mary Jo on grounds of federal preemption. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that the Federal Employees’ Group Life Insurance Act does not preempt state equitable claims and that the divorce decree entitled Phyllis and the grandchildren to a constructive trust over at least the portion of proceeds corresponding to the original policy terms. The court remanded for determination of the exact amount under the original coverage option and any remaining balance.
family lawpropertyfederal power
In Re Tn
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-03-13
This case concerned a CHINS (Child in Need of Services) proceeding in which the mother admitted the allegations regarding her child T.N., but the father objected and requested a contested fact-finding hearing to challenge the adjudication. The trial court accepted the mother's admission, found T.N. to be a CHINS, and instead provided the father only a contested dispositional hearing to dispute any resulting services. The Indiana Supreme Court held that this procedure violated the father's due process rights, ruling that when one parent admits and the other denies the child is in need of services, the court must conduct a fact-finding hearing on the entire matter under Indiana Code sections 31-34-10-8 and 31-34-11-1. The decision emphasized that the dispositional hearing did not substitute for the required fact-finding hearing, and remanded for such a hearing.
family lawcivil rightsprocedure
Hill v. State
Indiana Supreme Court · 2012-01-24 · cited 27×
The case involved Antoine Hill, who pleaded guilty to attempted murder and battery charges resulting in a 52-year sentence but failed to file a timely direct appeal. His counsel filed a petition under Indiana Post-Conviction Rule 2 seeking permission for a belated appeal, which the trial court denied, and then failed to timely appeal that denial. Hill subsequently filed a petition under Post-Conviction Rule 1 alleging ineffective assistance by his Rule 2 counsel. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the Baum v. State standard governs claims of ineffective assistance in Post-Conviction Rule 2 proceedings and concluded that counsel's performance satisfied this standard because it occurred in a procedurally fair setting that produced a court judgment, leading the court to affirm the denial of relief.
criminal lawprocedure