ILNews

Judges uphold theft charge against man

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a man’s motion to dismiss his theft charge in Jay County because he caused the delay in the case by absconding. The case brought up the issue of whether knowledge by jail officials on the whereabouts of the defendant can mean that the judge and prosecutor were sufficiently notified.

George Feuston was arrested in Jay County and charged with Class D felony theft on May 3, 2009. While out on bond, he didn’t appear for his pretrial conference and was arrested in Delaware County on an unrelated charge in August 2009. In August 2010, Feuston filed a motion requesting a discharge of his theft charge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) because more than a year had passed since he was arrested in Jay County. In an October 2010 motion, he attached a purported fax correspondence between the Delaware and Jay County jails showing that Jay County jail officials knew he was in the Delaware County jail, but there’s not chronological case summary entry in his Jay County case around the time the fax was sent.

The trial court denied his motion, concluding that he was responsible for all the delay from the time of his pre-trial hearing until August 2010 when he filed his motion.

In George A. Feuston v. State of Indiana, No. 38A02-1011-CR-1175, the judges affirmed the denial of his motion for discharge. The judges rejected his argument that his whereabouts is irrelevant because the trial court could set a trial date regardless of whether he is present, citing Schwartz v. State, 708 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). But Schwartz says that when the record is silent as for the reason for the delay, it won’t be charged to the defendant.

Judge Terry Crone wrote that the court was not inclined to create duty on the trial courts that they must fill their calendars with “place holder” trial dates for defendants who haven’t appeared or whose whereabouts are unknown.

The judges also discussed the issue of whether the Jay County jail officials had knowledge of Feuston’s location based on the fax presented by Feuston. The majority concluded that knowledge of a police office or correctional officer shouldn’t be imputed to the trial court or prosecutor in these circumstances, citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Kohlmeyer, 261 Ind. 244, 303 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. 1973).
 
Feuston didn’t present any evidence that the trial court or prosecutor knew where he was before he filed his August 2010 motion, so he hasn’t shown he’s entitled to discharge. In addition, he does not have clean hands in the matter since the prosecutor and court lost track of him because he absconded, wrote Judge Crone.

Chief Judge Margret Robb concurred in result because she felt the majority hold was too broad. She wrote that if there was indisputable evidence that jail officials knew where Feuston was and that he was incarcerated in Delaware County, the trial court and prosecutor were sufficiently notified of his whereabouts to begin the Rule 4(C) clock running as of that date.

But in this case, there is only evidence suggesting that the Jay County Jail became aware of his incarceration and the burden is on Feuston to support his claims, which he did not do, she wrote.

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. Whilst it may be true that Judges and Justices enjoy such freedom of time and effort, it certainly does not hold true for the average working person. To say that one must 1) take a day or a half day off work every 3 months, 2) gather a list of information including recent photographs, and 3) set up a time that is convenient for the local sheriff or other such office to complete the registry is more than a bit near-sighted. This may be procedural, and hence, in the near-sighted minds of the court, not 'punishment,' but it is in fact 'punishment.' The local sheriffs probably feel a little punished too by the overwork. Registries serve to punish the offender whilst simultaneously providing the public at large with a false sense of security. The false sense of security is dangerous to the public who may not exercise due diligence by thinking there are no offenders in their locale. In fact, the registry only informs them of those who have been convicted.

  2. Unfortunately, the court doesn't understand the difference between ebidta and adjusted ebidta as they clearly got the ruling wrong based on their misunderstanding

  3. A common refrain in the comments on this website comes from people who cannot locate attorneys willing put justice over retainers. At the same time the judiciary threatens to make pro bono work mandatory, seemingly noting the same concern. But what happens to attorneys who have the chumptzah to threatened the legal status quo in Indiana? Ask Gary Welch, ask Paul Ogden, ask me. Speak truth to power, suffer horrendously accordingly. No wonder Hoosier attorneys who want to keep in good graces merely chase the dollars ... the powers that be have no concerns as to those who are ever for sale to the highest bidder ... for those even willing to compromise for $$$ never allow either justice or constitutionality to cause them to stand up to injustice or unconstitutionality. And the bad apples in the Hoosier barrel, like this one, just keep rotting.

  4. I am one of Steele's victims and was taken for $6,000. I want my money back due to him doing nothing for me. I filed for divorce after a 16 year marriage and lost everything. My kids, my home, cars, money, pension. Every attorney I have talked to is not willing to help me. What can I do? I was told i can file a civil suit but you have to have all of Steelers info that I don't have. Of someone can please help me or tell me what info I need would be great.

  5. It would appear that news breaking on Drudge from the Hoosier state (link below) ties back to this Hoosier story from the beginning of the recent police disrespect period .... MCBA president Cassandra Bentley McNair issued the statement on behalf of the association Dec. 1. The association said it was “saddened and disappointed” by the decision not to indict Ferguson police officer Darren Wilson for shooting Michael Brown. “The MCBA does not believe this was a just outcome to this process, and is disheartened that the system we as lawyers are intended to uphold failed the African-American community in such a way,” the association stated. “This situation is not just about the death of Michael Brown, but the thousands of other African-Americans who are disproportionately targeted and killed by police officers.” http://www.thestarpress.com/story/news/local/2016/07/18/hate-cops-sign-prompts-controversy/87242664/

ADVERTISEMENT