ILNews

Justices take 3 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share


The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to three cases, including one of first impression involving Indiana’s victim-advocate privilege.

In the case In Re Subpoena to Crisis Connection Inc., State of Indiana v. Ronald Keith Fromme, No. 19S05-1012-CR-678, the Indiana Court of Appeals explored the scope of Indiana’s victim-advocate privilege and declined to hold the privilege is absolute. The judges decided a three-step test should be applied to determine whether information is discoverable in a criminal case. They believed it provided a useful framework for balancing a victim’s privacy with a defendant’s constitutional rights.

Crisis Connection, a group that works with domestic violence and sexual assault victims, didn’t believe it should have to turn over records to the court for an in camera review in Ronald Keith Fromme’s criminal case. He was charged with felony child molesting and sought all records relating to his two alleged victims and their mothers.

The Court of Appeals upheld their decision on rehearing, holding that their earlier opinion allowing the in camera review of Crisis Connection’s documents doesn’t send the message that it’s “open season” on the records of victim services providers.

The justices took J.M. v. M.A., et al., No. 20S04-1012-CV-676, in which the Court of Appeals ordered the trial court to vacate its order adjudicating J.M. as the legal father of W.H. and ordering him to pay child support. Because the state conceded that J.M. isn’t W.H.’s biological father, the judges ordered the trial court to set aside the paternity affidavit.

The Supreme Court also accepted Joshua Konopasek v. State of Indiana, No. 25S03-1012-CR-669. The Court of Appeals affirmed Konopasek’s Class C felony conviction of battery causing serious bodily injury. The judges ruled that while evidence about his criminal record shouldn’t have been admitted, any error was harmless, and the state’s evidence was sufficient to prove battery and disprove Konopasek’s claim of self defense.

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. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT