« Indiana Decisions - Three today from Court of Appeals, One from Tax Court | Main | Environment - Gibson Generating Plant Multi-Jurisdictional Issues »

Thursday, August 26, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Two from Supreme Court today

Lisa Marie Pedraza v. Brian Gasperson (8/26/04 IndSCt) [Family Law]
Dickson, Justice

This appeal challenges the trial court's dismissal of a paternity action for lack of personal jurisdiction over the alleged father. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals reversed in part and remanded. We granted transfer and now affirm the trial court.

The mother, Lisa Marie Pedraza, filed a petition to establish paternity, child support, and parenting time, alleging Brian Gasperson was the biological father of her infant child, A.B. The alleged father filed a motion to dismiss, alleging lack of in personam jurisdiction. In its order granting the motion, the trial court summarized the relevant facts as follows:

The facts are without dispute. Mr. Gasperson has never had contact with the State of Indiana. [A.B.] was not conceived here nor was she born here. She does, however, live here now and has lived here for more than six months. Mr. Gasperson has never visited nor lived in Indiana.
The trial court held that, although it had subject matter jurisdiction to decide paternity cases, and the authority to hear this case because Indiana was A.B.'s home state under the Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction Law ("UCCJL"), Ind. Code § 31-17-3-3, it did not have personal j urisdiction over the alleged father, a non-resident of this state, because of the absence of sufficient minimal contacts required by the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and Indiana Trial Rule 4.4. * * *

In the present case, the trial court concluded:

Before an Indiana court can exercise jurisdiction of a nonresident, a plaintiff must satisfy both the long-arm statute, Ind. Trial Rule 4.4 and due process. The Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment requires that certain minimum contacts exist between a nonresident defendant and a plaintiff before personal jurisdiction is proper. Although even merely engaging in sexual intercourse leading to conception is a sufficient contact in a paternity suit to confer personal jurisdiction under T.R. 4.4 and due process, a contact even this minimal is lacking here. For this reason, then, Respondent's motion to
dismiss is granted.
The trial court was correct. We affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Donald Davis v. State of Indiana (8/26/04 IndSCt) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Shepard, Chief Justice
Appellant Donald Davis assaulted his former girlfriend, and the court found him guilty of criminal recklessness involving serious bodily injury, a class D felony. The question on appeal is whether a lacerated lip and a broken pinky finger constitute serious bodily injury. We hold they do not. * * *

As with all matters of degree, it is difficult to describe in words a bright line between what is “bodily injury” and what is “serious bodily injury.” We conclude that even taken altogether, a lacerated lip, abrasion to the knee, and a broken pinky fall below the line.

Accordingly, the evidence was insufficient to sustain the finding of criminal recklessness as a class D felony. We reverse and remand for entry of judgment for the crime of recklessness as a class B misdemeanor.
Dickson, Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on August 26, 2004 01:55 PM
Posted to Indiana Decisions