Supreme Court grants transfer in 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will review reversal of a man’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon due to a police officer’s testimony about the man’s nickname.

A divided appeals panel reversed conviction of the Class B felony and a 12-year prison sentence in Shawn Blount v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1304-CR-365. Blount was charged after a shooting at an Indianapolis motel. 

The majority Court of Appeals opinion by Senior Judge Carr Darden held that it was impermissible hearsay when an officer testified that a mother and son had provided a nickname that led to Blount’s arrest. Judge Margret Robb joined the majority and Judge James Kirsch dissented without opinion.

The Blount case is one of four that the Indiana Supreme Court took up for the week ending May 16.

Another criminal appeal also was added to the justices’ docket. The court will review Scott Logan v. State of Indiana, 20S05-1405-CR-339. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed Logan’s Class C felony conviction of child molestation from Elkhart Superior Court. Logan claimed at the Court of Appeals that charges should have been dismissed under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) and that Logan was denied a speedy trial.
Also on the transfer list is State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue Harper, 79S02-1405-CR-334, in which justices last week affirmed a sentence reduction,  finding that a deputy prosecutor’s conduct during a hearing satisfied the statutory requirement that a prosecuting attorney consent to the reduction.

In addition, justices will hear an appeal of trial court and Court of Appeals rulings that shareholders who sued an organization’s board of directors are entitled to full access to an unredacted version of a report produced by a special litigation committee.

That case is TP Orthodontics, Inc., Christopher K. Kesling, DDS, MS, Adam Kesling, and Emily Kesling, Individually and derivatively on behalf of TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Andrew C. Kesling, individually and as Trustee of the Andrew C. Kesling Trust Dated March 28, 2001, and the Andrew C. Kesling Trust Dated March 28, 2001, 46S03-1405-MI-337.

Indiana Supreme Court transfer disposition summaries may be viewed here.


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. This is ridiculous. Most JDs not practicing law don't know squat to justify calling themselves a lawyer. Maybe they should try visiting the inside of a courtroom before they go around calling themselves lawyers. This kind of promotional BS just increases the volume of people with JDs that are underqualified thereby dragging all the rest of us down likewise.

  2. I think it is safe to say that those Hoosier's with the most confidence in the Indiana judicial system are those Hoosier's who have never had the displeasure of dealing with the Hoosier court system.

  3. I have an open CHINS case I failed a urine screen I have since got clean completed IOP classes now in after care passed home inspection my x sister in law has my children I still don't even have unsupervised when I have been clean for over 4 months my x sister wants to keep the lids for good n has my case working with her I just discovered n have proof that at one of my hearing dcs case worker stated in court to the judge that a screen was dirty which caused me not to have unsupervised this was at the beginning two weeks after my initial screen I thought the weed could have still been in my system was upset because they were suppose to check levels n see if it was going down since this was only a few weeks after initial instead they said dirty I recently requested all of my screens from redwood because I take prescriptions that will show up n I was having my doctor look at levels to verify that matched what I was prescripted because dcs case worker accused me of abuseing when I got my screens I found out that screen I took that dcs case worker stated in court to judge that caused me to not get granted unsupervised was actually negative what can I do about this this is a serious issue saying a parent failed a screen in court to judge when they didn't please advise

  4. I have a degree at law, recent MS in regulatory studies. Licensed in KS, admitted b4 S& 7th circuit, but not to Indiana bar due to political correctness. Blacklisted, nearly unemployable due to hostile state action. Big Idea: Headwinds can overcome, esp for those not within the contours of the bell curve, the Lego Movie happiness set forth above. That said, even without the blacklisting for holding ideas unacceptable to the Glorious State, I think the idea presented above that a law degree open many vistas other than being a galley slave to elitist lawyers is pretty much laughable. (Did the law professors of Indiana pay for this to be published?)

  5. Joe, you might want to do some reading on the fate of Hoosier whistleblowers before you get your expectations raised up.