ILNews

Death penalty, election arguments Thursday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a death penalty case, a dispute whether the elected mayor of Terre Haute was eligible to run for office, and whether an order for a mother's voluntary termination of parental rights should have been set aside.

At 9 a.m., the justices will hear Daniel Ray Wilkes v. State of Indiana, No. 10S00-0808-DP-453. Daniel Ray Wilkes was convicted in Clark County for the murders of an Evansville woman and her two children. The jury failed to reach a unanimous decision as to Wilkes' sentence, so Vanderburgh Circuit Judge Carl Heldt issued a death sentence.

This was the first time since Indiana law changed in 2002 that a judge had to determine the sentence in a capital murder case after a jury deadlocked. The state law amendment requires judges to follow jury sentencing recommendations in capital cases. In the direct appeal, Wilkes argued various errors occurred during his trial and sentencing.

Arguments in Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett, No. 84S01-0904-CV-148, begin at 10:05 a.m. Duke Bennett was elected mayor of Terre Haute in 2007, but his opponent, Kevin Burke, contested the election because he claimed Bennett was ineligible to run for office since he worked for a nonprofit that received federal funds. Bennett was declared the winner, but the Indiana Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed and held that Bennett is disqualified, the mayor's office is vacant, and a special election is required.

The high court will also hear arguments at 10:55 a.m. in a case involving the denial of a mother's motion to set aside an order for voluntary termination of her parental rights. In the case In Re: Termination of parent-child relationship of M.B. and S.B., No. 34S02-0805-JV-437, the Howard Circuit Court denied the mother's Trial 60(B) motion to set aside the order voluntarily ending her parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed in the matter of first impression, ruling the addendum to her consent providing for post-adoption visitation was unenforceable because a partial termination of parental rights doesn't exist under Indiana law and severing the addendum didn't frustrate the basic purpose of the remainder of the agreement.

All arguments will be webcast live from the Supreme Court courtroom.

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT