« Ind. Courts - "Judge tells prosecutor to repay $18,000" | Main | Ind. Courts - Still more on "'Salacious' affidavit results in jail time for client Hinds, attorney Denney" »
Thursday, November 13, 2008
Ind. Decisions - "Molesting plea can't be altered"
Tne Indiana Supreme Court's decision yesterday in the case of Shawn E. Norris v. State of Indiana (see ILB entry here) is the subject today of a story by Niki Kelly in the Fort Wayne Journal Gazette. Some quotes:
The Indiana Supreme Court on Wednesday found that a Kosciusko County man cannot challenge his guilty plea to child molesting based on newly discovered evidence.It was the first time the state’s high court ruled on this particular legal issue.
Defendants have long had the right to use the post-conviction relief process to introduce newly discovered evidence and argue their guilt. But the avenue has been used only by those convicted at trial, not those who voluntarily admit their guilt.
Shawn Norris, 22, pleaded guilty to child molesting after a woman informed police in 2004 that he had fondled her daughter. The girl was living in the same home as Norris at the time of the allegations. He received and served a two-year prison term. He is out on parole but must comply with Indiana’s sex offender registry requirements, which includes lifetime notification.
Norris is mildly mentally retarded, and his lawyers argued he believed he had molested the girl based on what the girl’s mother told him. Then in 2006, the girl’s mother signed an affidavit recanting the allegations, saying they are “wholly and completely false.” She said she initiated the case against Norris to regain custody of her children. * * *
“Though this defendant now claims that new evidence would require that his conviction be vacated, we cannot harmonize this new position taken by the defendant with the fact that he originally admitted to committing the crime by his guilty plea,” Wednesday’s decision said. “It is inconsistent to allow defendants who pleaded guilty to use post-conviction proceedings to later revisit the integrity of their plea in light of alleged new evidence seeking to show that they were in fact not guilty. * * *
Two justices wrote their own opinion, concurring with the result of the majority opinion in the Norris case but differing on the overall legal question.
Justices Theodore Boehm and Robert Rucker said they don’t think Norris presented sufficient evidence to overcome the guilty plea, partly because the victim did not officially recant in a sworn affidavit.
But they disagreed with not allowing people who have pleaded guilty to use the post-conviction relief process if new evidence arises.
They acknowledged that innocent people in Indiana might plead guilty – often to get the benefit of a lesser prison sentence when it appears they would be convicted of a harsher crime.
“Any system of justice must allow for correction of injustice based on clear and convincing evidence of innocence, even if the defendant can be said to have contributed to his own plight by pleading guilty,” the concurring opinion said.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on November 13, 2008 08:05 AM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions