« Ind. Law - "Disturbing events surrounding expansion plans at Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis" | Main | Ind. Decisions - 7th Circuit site on the fritz again »

Monday, February 21, 2005

Ind. Decisions - Two today from the Court of Appeals

Jill C. Huffman v. State of Indiana (2/21/05 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Riley, Judge

Appellant-Defendant, Jill C. Huffman (Huffman), appeals the trial court’s denial of her motion to correct error seeking a correction in the trial court’s revocation of her probation. We dismiss without prejudice.

ISSUE. Although Huffman raises four issues on appeal, we find the following issue, which we raise sua sponte, dispositive: whether the validity of a guilty plea in a probation revocation proceeding can be raised on direct appeal. * * *

CONCLUSION. Based on the foregoing, we conclude that, pursuant to P-C.R. 1(1)(b), the validity of a guilty plea in a probation revocation proceeding can only be brought by a petition for post-conviction relief. Dismissed without prejudice.
CRONE, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.

Richard & Gail Schultz v. Ford Motor Co. (2/21/05 IndCtApp) [Torts]
Kirsch, Judge
Richard and Gail Schultz appeal the jury verdict in favor of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) on their product liability and negligence claims, contending that the trial court erred by using Final Instruction No. 23 (“Instruction 23”), which informed the jury that there was a rebuttable presumption that Ford was not negligent in its design of the Ford Explorer if it complied with Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standard (“FMVSS”) 216, concerning roof crush resistance. On appeal, the Schultzes raise the following consolidated and restated issue: whether the trial court erred in using Instruction 23 because the presumption at issue was not a proper subject for jury instruction.
We reverse and remand for a new trial. * * *
BARNES, J., and CRONE, J., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on February 21, 2005 01:48 PM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions