« Ind. Courts - Tax Court issues one yesterday | Main | Ind. Decisions - Court of Appeals issues 2 today (and 15 NFP) »

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Ind. Decisions - Supreme Court issues two

Two Supreme Court decisions posted today, one of them was decided yesterday.

In Larry Walden V. State, a 3-2, 14-page opinion, Justice Sullivan writes:

Larry Walden and his fiancée, Molly Arthur, were in an auto accident in which Walden’s truck swerved off the road and ended upside-down in a ditch. Walden managed to crawl out of the truck, but Arthur later died from her injuries. A jury found Walden guilty of the crime of Causing Death When Operating a Motor Vehicle with a Schedule I or II Controlled Substance in Blood. After returning its verdict at the conclusion of the “guilt phase” of the trial, a “habitual offender phase” of the trial followed pursuant to procedures authorized by the Legislature for punishing repeat offenders. At its conclusion, the jury also found Walden to be a “habitual offender.” He was sentenced to 20 years in prison, plus a habitual offender sentence enhancement of 30 years.

Walden raised four issues on appeal: whether the State had proved a sufficient foundation for the reliability of the scientific principles used by two expert witnesses as a basis for their testimony; whether the State proved Walden’s previous convictions to the extent necessary to establish that he was a “habitual offender”; whether the trial court improperly rejected Walden’s proposed jury instruction concerning the jury’s authority not to find him to be a habitual offender; and whether Walden’s sentence was inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court in all respects. Walden v. State, No. 18A02-0605-CR-420, slip op. (Ind. Ct. App. May 10, 2007). Walden petitioned for, and we granted, transfer. Walden v. State, 878 N.E.2d 216 (Ind. 2007) (table). We now address Walden’s claim that the trial court improperly rejected his proposed jury instruction. In all other respects, we summarily affirm the Court of Appeals. Ind. Appellate Rule 58(A). * * *

The judgment of the trial court is affirmed with respect to Walden’s proposed jury instruction No. 1. We summarily affirm the Court of Appeals as to other issues raised on appeal but not addressed in this opinion. App. R. 58(A).

Shepard, C.J., and Boehm, J., concur.
Rucker, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Dickson, J., concurs.
Dickson, J., dissents with separate opinion in which Rucker, J., concurs.

[Justice Rucker's 3-page dissent begins] The majority makes a distinction between “law and facts” jury instructions in the guilt and habitual offender phases of trial. Because I see little daylight in the wording of Indiana Code section 35-37-2-2(5) and the provisions of Article 1, Section 19, I respectfully dissent.

[Justice Dickson's 2-page dissent concludes] Because I believe that the defendant was entitled to have the jury meaningfully instructed regarding its right to find in favor of a criminal defendant despite substantial contrary evidence, a historic right of American juries and one additionally preserved in Section 19 of the Indiana Bill of Rights, I dissent from the majority's opinion.

In Norman R. Carlson, Jr., et al v. Sweeney, Dabagia, Donoghue, Thorne, Janes & Pagos; and John H. Sweeney, a 14-page, 5-0 opinion, Justice Rucker writes:
Arising in the context of a legal malpractice action, this case involves the reformation of trust provisions in two wills to comport with the testators’ intent to avoid adverse federal estate tax consequences. We hold the trusts were properly reformed to include ascertainable standards in accordance with the Internal Revenue Code. * * *

We affirm in part the judgment of the trial court. This cause is remanded for further proceedings.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on October 21, 2008 01:00 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions