Monday, April 11, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and nextThis week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 4/11/16):
- No oral arguments currently scheduled
Wednesday, April 20
- 10:30 AM - F. John Rogers, as Personal Rep. of Paul Michalik, Deceased, and R. David Boyer, Trustee of the Estate of Jerry Lee Chambers v. Angela Martin and Brian Brothers (02S05-1603-CT-114) At a party hosted by Brothers and Martin, Brothers engaged in a fistfight which allegedly resulted in injury to Chambers and death to Michalik. Representatives of Chambers and Michalik brought this action alleging Martin bore liability for the injuries. The Allen Superior Court granted summary judgment to Martin, but the Court of Appeals reversed. Rogers v. Martin, --- N.E.3d ---, 2015 WL 8872293 (Ind. Ct. App. Dec. 14, 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal. This oral argument will be held in Corydon, Indiana.
ILB: - As the Supreme Court announced last month, it: "will travel to Corydon on April 20, 2016 to hear a modern case in a historic setting in celebration of the bicentennial. The Court is working with the Department of Education to videotape the argument for classrooms across the state and the general public for online viewing expected to be available by April 22." See this March 10th ILB post.
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 4/11/16): Thursday, April 14
- 10:30 AM - Cooper v State (29A02-1507-CR-1000) On appeal, Appellant-Defendant Sattore Cooper challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his conviction for Class B felony burglary. In challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, Cooper contends that (1) the evidence is insufficient to link him to the vehicle used in the commission of the burglary, (2) he was acquitted of the predicate offense of theft, (3) one of the witnesses who initially identified him as a participant in the burglary was unable to identify him at trial, and (4) another witness had an inconsistent recollection of facts relating to the vehicle allegedly used in the commission of the burglary. Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana contends that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Cooper's conviction and that Cooper's claim to the contrary amounts to an invitation for this court to reweigh the credibility of the witnesses who testified and the evidence presented at trial. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Bailey and Bradford. [Where: Shelbyville High School, 2003 S. Miller St., Shelbyville, IN]
- 1:00 PM - Neibert v. Perdomo (43A03-1503-CC-99) During their 10-year cohabitation, Craig Neibert and Jody Perdomo renovated a previously uninhabitable home that had belonged to Perdomo's father and constructed a new home on farmland that Perdomo had inherited from her father. Neibert, an experienced contractor, performed nearly all the labor, and Perdomo provided the majority of the materials and funds. After the couple completed the renovation project, Perdomo leased her father's house and kept the rental income for herself. The couple lived in the new house during the final stages of construction and eventually ended their relationship. After their breakup, Neibert filed an action against Perdomo seeking, among other things, damages for breach of implied contract and unjust enrichment. During the ensuing bench trial, Perdomo moved for an involuntary dismissal of Neibert's contract claims under Indiana Trial Rule 41(B), which the trial court granted. Neibert now appeals that ruling. Issues in this interlocutory appeal include: whether Neibert had rested his case when Perdomo moved for involuntary dismissal; whether the trial court abused its discretion in excluding the written report of Neibert's expert witness; whether Neibert nevertheless presented evidence sufficient to survive involuntary dismissal; and whether the trial court issued sufficient findings of fact. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Barnes and Crone. [Where: Valparaiso University School of Law, 656 S. Greenwich St., Valparaiso, IN]
- 1:00 PM - Cunningham v. State (09A02-1510-CR-1653) Travis Cunningham was charged with, among other offenses, burglary following an incident occurring at a clothing museum in Logansport, IN. Thereafter, Cunningham entered into a plea agreement with the State whereby he would enter a guilty plea as to the burglary charge in exchange for the State dismissing the remaining counts. At the guilty plea hearing, Cunningham admitted he broke into the museum with the intent to find something to steal. Cunningham also explained, however, that he was under the influence of drugs and alcohol at the time and only broke into the museum to find his girlfriend. The trial court took the matter under advisement and scheduled a sentencing hearing. At the sentencing hearing, Cunningham orally requested to withdraw his guilty plea, claiming he provided his attorney with a written motion to withdraw the guilty plea, but Cunningham's counsel did not acquiesce to Cunningham's motion. The trial court denied the motion, accepted Cunningham's plea, and rendered Cunningham's sentence. On appeal, Cunningham argues that the trial court should not have accepted his guilty plea and the trial court abused its discretion in denying Cunningham's oral motion to withdraw the guilty plea. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Riley, Robb and Barnes. [Where: Hammond Academy of Science and Technology, 33 Muenich Court, Hammond, IN]
- 1:00 PM - Hodges v. State (43A03-1507-CR-843) Lonny Hodges was convicted of certain crimes and, as part of his sentences, he began serving probation on Dec. 31, 2013. Hodges signed an acknowledgment of the conditions of his probation, which provided in relevant part: "You waive your right against search and seizure, and shall permit a Probation Officer, or any law enforcement officer acting on a Probation Officer's behalf, to search your person, residence, motor vehicle, or any location where your personal property may be found, to insure compliance with probation." On Feb. 26, 2014, Hodges' probation officer and a law enforcement officer accompanied Hodges to the address listed with probation as his home address in order to conduct a home visit. During that visit, the probation officer and law enforcement officer searched a garage on Hodges' property. They discovered a 12-gauge shotgun and numerous chemicals, precursors, and other items used to manufacture methamphetamine. The State charged Hodges with class C felony possessing chemical reagents or precursors with intent to manufacture a controlled substance, and class D felony possession of methamphetamine. Hodges filed a motion to suppress the evidence obtained during the search of his garage, arguing that the warrantless and suspicionless search violated his constitutional rights. The trial court denied the motion and certified its decision, and we accepted jurisdiction of this interlocutory appeal. The central issue presented is whether the search of the garage violated Article 1, Section 11 of the Indiana Constitution. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Bailey and Crone. [Where: Court of Appeals Courtroom (WEBCAST)]
- 10:00 AM - John Doe #1, et al v. Indiana Department of Child Services (49A02-1506-CT-682) John Doe called in a report to Department of Child Services regarding homes in his neighborhood in which he believed children were being neglected. The DCS employee asked Doe for his name and phone number. Doe indicated he preferred not to give this information. When the DCS employee assured Doe the information would be kept confidential, he provided his first name and phone number. About a week later, Doe was angrily confronted outside his home by one of the neighbors he had reported. She had an unredacted DCS report that included Doe's first name, street name and telephone number.
Doe and his family filed a negligence action against DCS for damages resulting from the improper disclosure of Doe's identity. DCS filed for summary judgment, arguing that the Does did not have a private right of action. The Does responded that DCS owed them a duty of care under both Ind. Code 31-33-18-2 and common law. The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of DCS. The Does appeal. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Kirsch, Robb and Altice. [Where: Martin University, 2171 Avondale Place, Indianapolis, IN]
- 1:00 PM - Jones v. State (49A02-1508-CR-1148) Appellants-Defendants Jennifer Jones and Jamaal Jones (collectively, the Joneses) present us with a discretionary, consolidated interlocutory appeal from the trial court's denial of a motion to suppress evidence. The Joneses bring three issues on appeal: 1. Whether the warrantless search of the Joneses' residence is justified based on the exigent circumstances to conduct a welfare check on the three minor children left unattended in the home; 2. Whether police officers may conduct a protective sweep of the residence as part of the welfare check; and 3. Whether the Butler University Police Department had jurisdiction pursuant to the Trustees Resolution to conduct a welfare check based on the particular facts in this case. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Najam, Riley and Robb. [Where: St. Joseph's College, Shen Auditorium, 1498 S. College Ave., Rensselaer, IN 47978]
- 2:00 PM - Scisney v. State (49A02-1504-CR-227) Derek Scisney was convicted in Marion Superior Court of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon (“SVF”) and resisting law enforcement. Scisney appeals his conviction for unlawful possession of a firearm by an SVF and argues that the trial court abused its discretion when it admitted the firearm into evidence. In this case, law enforcement officers were responding to a dispatch of shots fired by a white male wearing a blue shirt. The officers quickly found a suspect matching that description and performed a Terry stop of the suspect and his companion, Scisney. During the Terry stop, an officer performed a pat down search of Scisney and discovered a firearm. Appealing his conviction, Scisney argues that the law enforcement officer lacked reasonable suspicion to conduct the Terry stop and accompanying pat down search. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Chief Judge Vaidik, Judges Mathias and Bradford. [Where: Indiana Tech Law School Courtroom, 1600 E. Washington Blvd., Fort Wayne, IN]
The past COA webcasts which have been webcast are accessible here.
ONLY those Court of Appeals oral arguments presented in the Supreme or Court of Appeals Courtrooms generally will be accessible via videocast.
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 11, 2016 09:00 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments