« Ind. Courts - Questions posed to candidates in Floyd County Superior Court 3 Democratic Primary | Main | Ind. Courts - Yet more on the sealing of records in the Clerk of the Courts Office »

Thursday, April 03, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 4 NFP), including an interlocutory appeal lost in the Clerk's office for eight months

For publication opinions today (2):

In State of Indiana v. Harold Lewis, a 10-page opinion, Judge Crone writes:

On interlocutory appeal, the State challenges the granting of a motion in limine filed by defendant Harold Lewis. The State asserts that in this trial on a charge of criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury, the State should be permitted to present evidence of the victim’s death, which occurred after Lewis allegedly shot him. We reverse and remand. * * *

Applying the aforementioned law to the present dispute, we must conclude that while Lewis was free to request a stipulation regarding serious bodily injury, the State was not required to agree. Moreover, the State is entitled to prove that Lewis committed criminal recklessness resulting in serious bodily injury by evidence of its own choice. Thus, assuming admissibility decisions are based upon our Indiana Rules of Evidence, gory photographs, the fact that Hensley died some time after the incident, other evidence, and/or some combination thereof, may all be fair game. Accordingly, we must reverse the grant of Lewis’s motion in limine and remand for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
_____________
Ftnote 1 [on p. 6] Although briefing was complete in June 2007, we did not receive this case from the Clerk’s office until February 28, 2008. We regret the delay – particularly in an interlocutory appeal.

This follows upon the ILB entry from March 27th and is the fifth such case that has surfaced so far. And this one is an interlocutory appeal, which as such is supposed to be expedited according to Appellate Rule 21(A).

Although in the March 27th opinion, CJ Baker advised counsel that after your appeal has been fully briefed, check that it has in fact been transmitted to the judges (rather than simply assuming that the court is taking a long time to act on it). However, as we learned yesterday from several readers, some cases have been totally (and inexplicably) "disappearing" from the online docket.

In Progressive Halcyon Insurance Company v. Michael and Autumn Petty, a 17-page opinion, the question is whether Michael and Autumn are entitled to underinsured motorist (“UIM”) coverage under Autumn’s policy with Progressive. The trial court said yes. Judge Crone writes:

In sum, we conclude that Michael and Autumn are not entitled to UIM coverage under the Policy. Therefore, we reverse and remand with instructions to grant summary judgment in Progressive’s favor.
NFP civil opinions today (0):

NFP criminal opinions today (4) [Link to Cases]:

Jill A Hayden v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Julie A. Gardiner v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Sammy Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Felix Hernandez v. State of Indiana (NFP)

Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 3, 2008 11:36 AM
Posted to Ind. App.Ct. Decisions