Monday, September 15, 2014
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and next [Updated]
This week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/15/14):
Thursday, Sept. 18
- 9:00 AM - Jason Young v. Hood's Gardens, Inc. (29S02-1405-PL-314) After Young was injured while removing a tree stump from its property, Hood’s Gardens sued, seeking a declaration that it cannot be held liable to pay Young worker’s compensation benefits under IC 22-3-2-14(b), which imposes secondary liability in some situations where there is a contract for the performance of work exceeding $1,000 in value. The Hamilton Superior Court granted summary judgment to Hood’s Gardens after concluding that the evidence shows as a matter of law that the statutory minimum amount of value was not triggered and so Hood’s Gardens may not be held liable. A divided Court of Appeals panel affirmed. Young v. Hood’s Gardens, Inc., 2 N.E.3d 724 (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 was a 2-1, Dec. 17, 2013 COA opinion (3rd case), where the dissent begins: "This case illustrates once again the marked difference in summary judgment procedure in Indiana as compared to federal practice."
- 9:45 AM - Rodregus Morgan v. State of Indiana (49S02-1405-CR-325) Following a bench trial in the Marion Superior Court, Morgan was convicted of public intoxication and disorderly conduct. IC 7.1-5-1-3(a)(4) specifies that it is a Class B misdemeanor for a person to be in a public place in a state of intoxication if the person “harasses, annoys, or alarms another person.” The Court of Appeals held that the term “annoying” was void for vagueness. Morgan v. State, 4 N.E.3d 751 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a Feb. 13, 2014 COA opinion (3rd case) concluding: "Based on the foregoing, we conclude that Section (a)(4) of the public intoxication statute is unconstitutionally vague and cannot be the basis of Morgan’s conviction. We also conclude that there is sufficient evidence to uphold Morgan’s conviction for disorderly conduct."
- 10:30 AM - Adoption of J.D.; IDCS v. N.E. (45S03-1406-AD-387) During the pendency of CHINS and termination of parental rights proceedings in the Juvenile Division of the Lake Superior Court, N.E., a maternal relative and the children’s former foster parent, petitioned in the Civil Division to adopt the two children. The Civil Division denied a motion filed by the Department of Child Services seeking to transfer the adoption proceedings to the Juvenile Division. The Court of Appeals affirmed on interlocutory appeal. Matter of Adoption of J.T.D., 5 N.E.3d 786 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. [Note: This oral argument will take place in the Statehouse Rotunda.]
ILB: This was March 12, 2014 COA opinion holding:
Our General Assembly has statutorily conferred jurisdiction of adoption proceedings exclusively to probate courts. In Lake County, the Civil Division has probate jurisdiction, and therefore, exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over adoption proceedings. DCS may not rely on local court rule, i.e. the Caseload Allocation Plan, to circumvent the Lake County Civil Division’s exclusive subject matter jurisdiction over adoption proceedings.As reported in this April 10th post, "The Indiana Department of Child Services recently expressed concern these hundreds of adoptions are 'at risk,' according to a court of appeals document."
Next week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 9/22/14):
Thursday, Sept. 25
- 9:00 AM - State of Indiana v. Michael Cunningham (19A05-1310-CR-489) Cunningham’s vehicle had a broken tail light, and police stopped him. When he exited the car to examine the taillight himself, police conducted a pat-down search and found marijuana in Cunningham’s pocket, and when asked, Cunningham told them about a pipe in the car. Facing two Class A misdemeanor charges, Cunningham moved to suppress the evidence. The Dubois Superior Court granted the motion, and a divided Court of Appeals affirmed in State v. Cunningham, 4 N.E.3d 800 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), trans. pending. The State of Indiana has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was a 2-1, Feb. 27, 2014 COA opinion (2nd case), where the dissent writes: "In my view, however, the circumstances did not necessitate that Cunningham exit his vehicle, and indeed he chose to do so with full knowledge that, if he exited the vehicle, it would result in a pat-down search."
- 9:45 AM - In re Adoption of B.C.H. (41S04-1408-AD-515) The grandparents filed a motion to set aside an adoption decree on grounds they were defacto custodians of the child, and, therefore, they were "lawful custodians" under the adoption statute such that their written consent to the adoption was required and they were entitled to notice of the petition for adoption. The Johnson Superior Court denied the grandparents' motion. The Court of Appeals affirmed, with the majority holding “use of the phrase ‘lawful custody’ under Ind. Code § 31-19-10-1(a)(3) is equivalent to ‘legal custody,’ that is, court-ordered custody.” In the Matter of the Adoption of B.C.H., 7 N.E.3d 1000, 1005 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This was an April 22nd, 2014 COA opinion, with a separate opinion "concurring in result".
- 10:30 AM - Kenneth Griesemer v. State of Indiana (49S04-1408-CR-564) At his bench trial on charges of patronizing a prostitute, Griesemer defended on grounds he had been entrapped by police, but the Marion Superior Court convicted him. A divided Court of Appeals reversed, concluding that the State had not met its burden to establish that Griesemer was predisposed to commit the offense. Griesemer v. State, 10 N.E.3d 1015 (Ind. Ct. App. 2014), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: This is a 2-1, May 23rd opinion where the majority concludes:
Because the evidence most favorable to the State permits an inference only that the police induced Griesemer’s criminal behavior, but does not contain any evidence permitting an inference that Griesemer was predisposed to commit patronizing a prostitute, entrapment was established as a matter of law, and we must reverse Griesemer’s conviction. Reversed.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/15/14):
Tuesday, Sept. 16
- 1:00 PM - Burton v. State (49A02-1401-CR-10) Appellant-Defendant Dominique Burton appeals following his conviction for possession of cocaine. Burton contends that the evidence presented during trial is insufficient to sustain his conviction. Specifically, Burton claims that Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana (the "State") failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively possessed or had knowledge of the presence of the cocaine in his vehicle. For its part, the State contends that the evidence presented at trial is sufficient to sustain Burton's conviction. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Friedlander, Bailey and Bradford [Where:Western High School, Russiaville, IN]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 9/22/14):
Tuesday, September 23
- 1:00 PM - Ballentine v. State (20A03-1402-CR-84) After a traffic stop along the Indiana Toll Road led to a search of the van he was driving and the discovery of a handgun, a plastic bag containing marijuana, a scale containing cocaine residue, a drug ledger, a bag containing $1,753 in cash, and a bag full of empty plastic baggies, William Ballentine was charged with Class C felony possession of cocaine, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, and Class A misdemeanor carrying a handgun without a license. He appeals following his conviction for possession of cocaine as a Class C felony and possession of marijuana, a Class A misdemeanor. Ballentine argues first that the State of Indiana did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he constructively possessed or had knowledge of the presence of the marijuana and cocaine that were discovered in the vehicle he was driving. He further contends that his aggregate six-year sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Bailey, Robb and Mathias. [Where:East Noble High School, Kendallville]
Friday, September 26
- 1:00 PM - McCloud v. State (48A02-1312-CR-1056) On Feb. 25, 2013, Officers Frazier and Boynton of the Anderson Police Department approached three men in a driveway to ask them if they knew of a man the police were searching for. The police believed that this man might be in the apartment complex across the street, an area known for its high drug activity. When the police approached the men, one of them, Marquise McCloud, recognized Officer Frazier and stated aloud, “Damn, Frazier.” Frazier also recognized McCloud as the man he had arrested three days earlier after McCloud had hidden marijuana and a handgun in the attic of a house. McCloud ducked behind a car in the driveway and began to attempt to pull something out of his coat pocket. Concerned that McCloud might be armed, Frazier drew his weapon and ordered McCloud to show his hands. McCloud initially refused to comply, but eventually raised his hands. Frazier performed a pat-down on McCloud and felt a large, hard object in McCloud’s front coat pocket, which he believed might be a knife. Upon emptying the contents of McCloud’s pockets, Frazier discovered a plastic bag containing cocaine. The State charged McCloud with Class A felony dealing in cocaine and Class A felony possession of cocaine within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex. The trial court denied McCloud’s motion to suppress the evidence found in the pat-down search, and the jury found McCloud not guilty of dealing in cocaine but guilty of possession of cocaine. The trial court sentenced McCloud to 40 years, with 33 years executed, two years on community corrections, and three years probation. McCloud argues on appeal that: (1) the admission of the evidence seized during the pat-down search was fundamental error because Frazier did not have reasonable suspicion to believe that McCloud was armed; (2) that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing McCloud; and (3) that McCloud’s sentence is inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and the character of the offender. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Mathias and Crone. [Where:Wayne High School, Fort Wayne]
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms will be accessible via videocast. [Note: This may be changing...]
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 September 15, 2014 08:29 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments