ILNews

Supreme Court grants 3 transfers

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted three transfers Wednesday, including a case of first impression on sentence enhancements.

Joshua G. Nicoson v. State of Indiana, No. 32S04-1003-CR-150, is a case of first impression that divided the Indiana Court of Appeals about whether Joshua Nicoson's sentence enhancement based on his use of a deadly weapon violated double-jeopardy principals. The majority affirmed his 5-year sentence enhancement for the use of a firearm following Nicoson's convictions of criminal confinement with a deadly weapon and pointing a firearm.

The majority concluded it was apparent that Nicoson's convictions for confinement and the enhancement for that offense relied on separate facts. His criminal confinement conviction was elevated to a Class B felony because he was armed with a deadly weapon, and there's no requirement that the state has to prove a defendant actually used the weapon during the commission of the offense. The enhancement provision refers to actual use.

Judge Carr Darden dissented because Nicoson was charged and convicted of confining the victims while armed with a deadly weapon and of using a firearm while committing the confinement. If the deadly weapon is a firearm, how could a person thereby armed not also commit the offense of confinement using a firearm, questioned Judge Darden.

In Richard Patrick Wilson and Billy Don Wilson v. Gene Isaacs, Sheriff of Cass County, and Brad Craven, No. 09S05-1003-CV-149, the Court of Appeals held the use of excessive force is not conduct immunized under Section 3(8) of the Indiana Tort Claims Act. It reversed summary judgment in favor of Cass County Sheriff Gene Isaacs in the Wilson brothers' suit alleging injuries as a result of excessive force. The appellate court noted there has been some confusion whether the ITCA law enforcement immunity provision applies to claims for injuries resulting from the use of excessive force during detention or arrest.

There are questions about whether Kemezy v. Peters, 622 N.E.2d 1296 (Ind. 1993), still remains good law. In Kemezy, the Supreme Court found law enforcement officers owe a private duty to refrain from excessive force when making arrests and the use of excessive force isn't immunized by Section 3(8). The judges followed the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Indiana's reasoning on Kemezy to conclude the use of excessive force is not conduct immunized under section 3(8) of the ITCA.

In In the matter of the involuntary termination of the parent-child relationship of I.A.; J.H. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, No. 62S01-1003-JV-148, the Court of Appeals unanimously affirmed the involuntary termination of father J.H.'s parental rights in the not-for-publication decision. The father argued the Department of Child Services didn't prove by clear and convincing evidence that the conditions that resulted in I.A.'s removal wouldn't be remedied and that his relationship with his son threatened I.A.'s well-being. He argued it was I.A.'s mother's behavior and acts of negligence and not his that led to I.A.'s initial removal from his mother's home.

The Court of Appeals found sufficient evidence, such as J.H. hadn't bonded with his child and he lacked proper parenting skills after months of training.

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