« Courts - Status of marriage equality cases across the nation, as of last Friday, April 4th | Main | Ind. Courts - "Are Indiana's Newly-Expunged Convictions Still Available for Impeachment?" [Updated] »
Monday, April 07, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 4/7/14):
Thursday, April 10
- 10:30 AM - Nick McIlquham v. State of Indiana (49S05-1401-CR-28) The Marion Superior Court denied McIlquham’s motion to suppress evidence obtained during a warrantless entry into an apartment, and following a bench trial, convicted him of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon and other offenses. Applying a “community caretaking exception,” the Court of Appeals determined no Fourth Amendment violation had occurred, and affirmed. McIlquham v. State, 992 N.E.2d 904 (Ind. Ct. App. 2013), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is an August 14, 2013 COA opinion (3rd case).
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 4/14/14):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 4/7/14):
Tuesday, April 8
- 10:00 AM - Brandon Robey v. State of Indiana (12A02-1306-CR-502) At some point in the late summer or early autumn of 2010, Appellant-Defendant Brandon Robey caused his six-or-seven-year-old biological daughter, A.P., to fondle his penis and then forced her to fellate him. At some later point, Robey inserted his penis into A.P.’s vagina and anus before ejaculating after rubbing his penis between her thighs. Following a jury trial, Robey was found guilty of four counts of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class C felony child molesting. After trial, Robey admitted that he was a habitual offender and a habitual substance offender. Robey contends that his habitual offender admission lacked a sufficient factual basis, the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct error on the basis of alleged juror misconduct, he was denied a fair trial by the admission of what he alleges was impermissible vouching testimony, and the prosecutor committed misconduct by improperly vouching for a witness The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb, and Bradford. [Where: Ivy Tech/Lafayette, 1301 South Creasy Lane, Lafayette, Indiana ]
Wednesday, April 10
- 11:30 AM - Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department v. Donald Prout (84A01-1304-CR-161) In April 2012, Donald A. Prout was arrested and charged with four counts of class D felony theft based on evidence that he engaged in ghost employment with the Marion County Sheriff’s Department on four occasions. The State alleged that Prout clocked in at the Sheriff’s Department and his part-time security job at the same time, and thus he received double pay for those hours reported to both entities. Prout pleaded not guilty on all counts. In September 2012, the State dismissed all charges against Prout, citing “Evidentiary Problems.” In December 2012, Prout filed a verified petition for expungement of his arrest records pursuant to Indiana Code Section 35-38-5-1, asserting that expungement was appropriate because no offense had been committed and there was an absence of probable cause. The trial court granted Prout’s petition. On appeal, the Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department (“IMPD”) argues that the trial court abused its discretion in granting Prout’s petition for expungement because probable cause existed both at the time of Prout’s arrest and at the time the charges were dismissed. The parties argue about which time in the proceedings – at arrest or at dismissal – that probable cause is required under Indiana Code Section 35-38-5-1. IMPD also asserts that Prout did not prove that he did not commit theft, which was his burden in the expungement proceedings. Prout asserts that IMPD’s arguments are requests for this Court to reweigh the evidence and judge the credibility of witnesses. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges May, Crone, and Bradford. [Where: Indiana University South Bend, Education and Arts Building, 1700 Mishawaka Ave., South Bend, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 4/14/14):
Tuesday, April 15
- 1:00 PM - Andrew J. Rogers v. Sigma Chi International Fraternity, et al (84A04-1305-CT-224) Andrew Rogers was physically assaulted during a party at a house rented by some members of Sigma Chi’s Terre Haute chapter. He sued the international fraternity, the local chapter, and certain individuals for his injuries. The trial court granted summary judgment for the defendants. Rogers argues on appeal the defendants were in possession of the house for premises liability purposes and they had a duty to protect Rogers from a foreseeable criminal attack by a third party while he was there.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges May, Brown, and Senior Judge Barteau.
[Where: University of Southern Indiana, Carter Hall, Evansville, Indiana]
- 3:00 PM - Tuggle v. State (49A05-1308-CR-413) Tuggle arrived at an Indianapolis hospital emergency room, claiming to be the victim of a shooting and an armed robbery. Although the police seized Tuggle’s clothing from the hospital and obtained a search warrant prior to performing any DNA testing, Tuggle contends that the DNA test results confirming that Tuggle was a suspect in another shooting should not have been admitted into evidence. Tuggle argues that he never relinquished any privacy rights in his property and the clothing showed no immediate apparent incriminating characteristics. Thus, Tuggle claims that the initial seizure of his clothing violated his rights to be free from unreasonable search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution and Article I Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. Therefore, Tuggle contends that the results of the DNA testing on the clothing were improperly admitted into evidence. The State counters that the clothing was properly seized and secured under both the plain view doctrine and the presence of exigent circumstances. The State argues that a search warrant allowing the DNA testing was properly obtained, and there was no violation of either the Fourth Amendment or the Indiana Constitution. Hence, the State asserts that the results of the DNA testing pointing to Tuggle as a suspect of the murder were properly admitted into evidence. Tuggle was ultimately convicted of murder and sentenced to fifty years of incarceration. This appeal ensues. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Barnes, and Crone. [Where: Supreme Court Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
Wednesday, April 16
- 1:30 PM - MSD of Martinsville v. Rebecca Jackson et al (55A01-1304-CT-182) After Martinsville West Middle School students Chance Jackson and Brandon Kent were injured during a school shooting by former student Michael Phelps, Jackson and Kent filed a lawsuit against the Metropolitan School District of Martinsville alleging that the School District breached its duty to keep Jackson and Kent safe. The School District filed a motion for summary judgment, which the trial court denied. The School District now appeals the trial court's order denying its motion for summary judgment, arguing that it is immune from liability under the Indiana Tort Claims Act, that the shooting was not foreseeable, and that the School District did not breach its duty to Jackson and Kent, and that Jackson was contributorily negligent. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Robb, Mathias, and Bradford. [Where: Taylor University, 236 W. Reade Ave., Upland, IN]
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
NOTE: For a printable version of this list of upcoming oral arguments, click on the date in the next line. Then select "Print" from your browser.
Posted by Marcia Oddi on April 7, 2014 08:27 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments