Justices address forum-shopping

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has clarified that a defendant who claims forum-shopping has happened in a criminal case does not need to establish prejudice in order to prevail on appeal. While the justices found no violation occurred in Jesse J. Harris, Jr. v. State of Indiana, No. 34S02-1203-CR-169, and affirmed the trial court ruling, the court has asked Howard County judges to review a local rule.

The case involves a murder in April 2008, when Jesse J. Harris, Jr. and two others left a strip club in Kokomo and followed a white Monte Carlo. They shot one man and two underage girls, and one of those girls was killed. A jury convicted Harris and the court sentenced him to the maximum 165 years for three counts combined.

The Court of Appeals affirmed last year, and in granting transfer the Supreme Court summarily affirmed the COA’s decision on all but one issue. The claim involving the state’s violation of a case-filing rule is what the justices have now clarified.

On appeal, Harris argued that the only reason his trial occurred in Howard Superior 1 was because the prosecutors engaged in forum-shopping. The Howard Circuit and Superior courts adopted a rule providing for a weekly rotation among the Circuit, Superior II and Superior IV judges – requiring a prosecutor to file felony charges in the court designated by the weekly rotation based on when the offense occurred. An exception says that when a defendant already faces an earlier criminal charge in a court not on rotation, the prosecutor must file the felony charges in that court. In this case, Harris already had a pending criminal charge in Howard Superior 1.

The Court of Appeals found that Harris could not show he had suffered any prejudice and declined to address the merits of the claim, but the justices disagreed with that.

“We think that requiring a defendant to establish prejudice sets the bar too high and therefore hold that a defendant need not do so to win a reversal,” Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard wrote.

Harris argued that the “another charge pending” exception doesn’t apply because the first charge had already been resolved by the time the second charged was filed.

“Although Harris’s interpretation of Local Rule 29 has some force, the trial court’s reading of its own rule, approved here through the standard process, is a plausible one entitled to some deference on appeal,” Shepard wrote. “We are thus inclined to accept its interpretation and conclude that no violation occurred. Still, the shades of grey in Local Rule 29 that led to this dispute need sharpening up. We will therefore ask the judges in Howard County to draft amendments sufficient to prevent a recurrence.”



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit