« Ind. Courts - "Reactions vary to trustee's court plan" | Main | Ind. Courts - Latest on Lake early voting case »
Thursday, October 16, 2008
Ind. Decisions - Question of whether defendant should have been granted new trial argued
The case of State of Indiana v. Shannon Hollars, argued yesterday before the Supreme Court (see ILB entry here), is the subject of a story today by Sophia Voravong of the Lafayette Journal Courier, who reports:
Shannon L. Hollars, 46, is serving a 22-year prison sentence after convictions last year in Clinton Superior Court for attempted murder and dealing marijuana. * * *A key issue raised is whether the state erred in not providing Mohler with a diagram, completed by emergency room officials, that detailed where Hollars had been shot that morning.
"We conceded that we could have gotten it. But you have to look at the fact that the state had -- the state had it and we didn't," Mohler said in response to questioning from the justices.
"It doesn't say you only have to give what you think we may not have. That's not the way discovery is set to work."
Hollars and his wife were in bed when, about 1 a.m. on Dec. 16, 2004, the Clinton County emergency response team broke into his Frankfort home to serve a search warrant.
A jury found Hollars guilty of attempted murder for firing a shot at Byron Padgett, the Kirklin town marshal. Padgett was not injured.
Mohler contends the diagram would show that Hollars was shot in the back of his bicep -- suggesting that Hollars had his back to police when he was shot.
But Deputy Attorney General Cynthia Ploughe, who presented the case Wednesday for the state, argued that Hollars' arm was extended as though he was pointing a gun. She was accompanied during the hearing by Clinton County Prosecutor Tony Sommer.
Shortly after Hollars' four-day jury trial in March 2007, Mohler had filed a motion to correct errors based on the fact that he did not receive a copy of the medical record.
It was part of the reason why Judge Kathy Smith vacated Hollars' attempted murder conviction and granted him a new trial. In her decision, Smith also noted the late timing of when the warrant was served and that she had declined during trial to provide a defendant-proposed instruction to the jury on "specific intent."
The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed her ruling this past June.
"There was no error in discovery. ... The instruction given to the jury was perfect," Ploughe told the justices Wednesday. "The appeals court, in turn, found that these were not errors.
"They were completely consistent with Indiana law and statute."
Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 16, 2008 08:13 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions