« Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 5 today (and 14 NFP) | Main | Ind. Courts - Attorneys' lounge now available in the Birch Bayh Federal Building and United States Courthouse (Indianapolis Division) »

Tuesday, July 29, 2008

Ind. Courts - More on: "Case in jeopardy because of typos"

Updating this ILB entry from July 19th, Kevin Lilly of the Logansport Pharos-Tribune reported on July 23rd, under the headline "Judge says typo didn’t harm case":

A judge ruled this week that multiple clerical mistakes did not prejudice the defendant’s rights in a sexual misconduct case.

Cass Circuit Court Judge Leo Burns overruled a defense motion to dismiss the prosecution’s second amendment to a charge of sexual misconduct with a minor against 23-year-old Jesse Alan Philapy of Kokomo.

Philapy’s attorney, Randy Hainlen, argued that the prosecutor’s office missed the deadline to make changes to the charging information used to inform defendants of the charges they face.

In a hearing last week, Chief Deputy Prosecutor Lisa Swaim argued that the flaws were merely typographical errors. * * *

Since the original filing, the prosecution twice made modifications to the age-sensitive sexual misconduct charge.

In August, the prosecution changed the time frame to 2007, changed the last name of the victim and removed the date of birth. In May, the prosecution filed another amendment in an attempt to correct the time frame and change the victim’s age to 15. Hainlen objected to the second attempt to modify the language.

In his ruling, Burns considered the question, “Does the amended information prejudice the substantial rights of the defendant?”

Burns indicated that Philapy had been aware of the charges throughout the proceedings. He pointed out that the second amendment was made more than 90 days before trial and that the defendant had been notified of the alleged victim’s age at multiple hearings.

“The mistakes made by the state in the first two informations were obvious,” Burns wrote. “The fact that the state, whether through inadvertence or lack of attention to detail, unnecessarily complicated a charging information that should have been easy to present accurately in the first instance, has not prejudiced the defendant’s substantial right to be informed of the nature of the charge pending against him. Nor does it affect his ability to properly prepare a defense.”

Posted by Marcia Oddi on July 29, 2008 01:44 PM
Posted to Ind. Trial Ct. Decisions