Monday, April 04, 2016
Ind. Decisions - Upcoming oral arguments this week and nextThis week's oral arguments before the Supreme Court (week of 4/4/16):
Thursday, April 7
- 9:00 AM - Timmie Bradley v. State of Indiana (49S05-1602-CR-83) Bradley was charged with several drug-related felonies. He moved to suppress the evidence found at the house on grounds the officers’ warrantless entry into the house had been illegal because the person who consented to it did not have “apparent authority” and that the circumstances did not support a “protective sweep” once the officers were inside. The Marion Superior Court granted the motion in part, and after a bench trial, convicted Bradley of some charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded, leaving Bradley convicted of one count of felony possession of cocaine. Bradley v. State, 44 N.E.3d 7 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: - This was a Sept. 16, 2015 COA opinion, where the panel concluded:
In sum, we conclude (1) that the Detectives entry into the home did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11; (2) that the Detective’s protective sweep of the kitchen did not violate the Fourth Amendment or Article I, Section 11; (3) that Bradley’s convictions for Class C felony possession of cocaine and a handgun and Class C felony possession of cocaine violated the prohibitions against double jeopardy and therefore must be vacated; (4) that the evidence is sufficient to sustain Bradley’s conviction for Class A felony possession of cocaine; and (5) that the evidence is insufficient to sustain Bradley’s conviction for Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana.
- 9:45 AM - Dannie C. Pattison v. State of Indiana (27S05-1603-CR-115) Based on the results of a certified chemical test, Pattison was charged with operating a vehicle with an alcohol concentration equivalent of .08% or more. The Grant Superior Court instructed the jury, without objection, that “the jury shall presume” the person charged had that level of alcohol concentration when the person operated the vehicle, “[h]owever, the presumption is rebuttable.” See Ind. Code § 9-30-6-15. Discussing fundamental error, the Court of Appeals determined the instruction impermissibly shifted the burden of proof to Pattison, and reversed the conviction. Pattison v. State, ___ N.E.3d___, 2015 WL 7873732 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), vacated. The Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: - This was a Dec. 12, 2015 COA opinion that concluded "Because the error caused by the court’s constitutionally infirm jury instruction was neither corrected by the court’s other instructions nor harmless based on the other evidence presented, we must reverse Pattison’s conviction." .
- 10:30 AM - Jordan Pribie v. State of Indiana (12A02-1412-CR-836) Pribie was convicted of rape in the Clinton Circuit Court. On appeal, Pribie argued that he should have been allowed to introduce evidence of DNA from an unknown male found in the rape kit, see Indiana Evidence Rule 412, and that there were two instances of juror misconduct. The Court of Appeals concluded no reversible error had occurred. Pribie v. State, ___ N.E.3d ___, 2015 WL 7982023 (Ind. Ct. App. 2015), trans. pending. Pribie has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
ILB: - This was a Dec. 4, 2015 COA opinion (summary here, 4th case).
- No oral arguments currently scheduled
Webcasts of Supreme Court oral arguments are available here.
This week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 4/4/16): Monday, April 4
- 1:00 PM - Cowans v. State (49A05-1508-CR-1196) A police officer flashed his lights behind Christopher Cowans' truck, attempting to pull Cowans over. Although he initially stopped, Cowans then drove off and led the officer on a slow-speed, six-minute, three-mile chase. Cowans was convicted of resisting law enforcement by fleeing. He now appeals, arguing that the trial court erred in not providing a "mistake of fact" instrution to the jury; Cowans claims that recent reports of police shootings made him scared of police, and he believed that he was entitled to drive to a well-lit area before stopping. The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, May and Brown. [Where: University of Southern Indiana, Carter Hall D, University Center West, 8600 University Blvd., Evansville]
Next week's oral arguments before the Court of Appeals (week of 4/11/16):Thursday, April 14
- 10:30 AM - Childress v. State (49A02-1506-CR-720) On appeal, Appellant-Defendant Gordon Childress contends that the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him by imposing an illegal sentence. Specifically, Childress claims that the portion of his sentence ordering him to stay away from all Home Depot stores located in Marion County for a term of 363 days amounted to an illegal sentence. Appellee-Plaintiff the State of Indiana contends that Childress has waived the instant sentence challenge. The State asserts that Childress should not be allowed to circumvent said waiver on appeal because he not only failed to lodge a contemporaneous objection to the stay-away order during the sentencing hearing, but also because he joined the State's request for said stay-away order.
The Scheduled Panel Members are: Judges Baker, Bailey and Bradford. [Where: Shelbyville High School, 2003 S. Miller St., Shelbyville, IN] [ILB: Oddly, although this info is from the Court Calendar on 4/4/16, the docket shows an opinion was issued 3/3/16 - this case listing is most likely an error]
- 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]
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 4, 2016 09:46 AM
Posted to Upcoming Oral Arguments