ILNews

COA: Prosecutor had ability to provide use immunity

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals relied on state Supreme Court precedent to find a Shelby County prosecutor could compel parents to testify by providing use immunity. The parents argued the prosecutor couldn’t grant use immunity because there were no grand jury proceedings and they hadn’t been charged with a crime.

In In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C.; S.H. v. State of Indiana, 73A01-1109-CR-468, the prosecutor petitioned for subpoenas to compel parents S.H. and S.C. to testify about the circumstances surrounding the birth of their child in 2010. S.C. gave birth at home and when she and the baby went to the hospital, the baby showed signs of injury in the form of multiple puncture wounds.

The trial court quashed the subpoenas on the grounds that they violated the parents’ right against self-incrimination, so the prosecutor asked for use immunity to make the parents speak about the birth and injuries. The trial court granted the motion and ordered the parents to testify even though they hadn’t been formally charged with a crime. The trial court also denied the parents’ motion to correct error.

The Court of Appeals found that a prosecutor investigating a crime before charging someone and without a grand jury does have the same authority to grant use immunity as a prosecutor using a grand jury. The trial court cited In Re Order for Ind. Bell Te. To Disclose Records, 274 Ind. 131, 134-35, 409 N.E.2d 1089, 1091 (1980), in support, and determined that such authority is implicit in the office of the prosecutor itself.

The appellate judges disagreed with the judge on that point, finding that a prosecuting attorney only has powers that are prescribed by statute. But, they pointed out that Indiana Bell decided that the investigatory powers of a prosecutor parallel those of the grand jury, and that the prosecutor has the same ability to accumulate evidence as the grand jury. It doesn’t matter that the issue in Indiana Bell did not involve self-incrimination, the judges held.

“While Parents’ argument is persuasive, we cannot reconcile the result they advocate with our Indiana Supreme Court’s statement that a prosecutor has the same ability to accumulate evidence as does a grand jury. We must agree with the State that the legislature’s explicit reference to grand jury proceedings in Ind. Code § 35-34-2-8 cannot be read to restrict the right of a prosecutor to seek use immunity when prosecution is initiated by means of an information rather than an indictment,” Judge Melissa May wrote. “Nor could the legislature have intended that prosecutors have fewer investigative tools before deciding to bring charges than they do after charges are brought.”

 

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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  2. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  3. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

  4. The fee increase would be livable except for the 11% increase in spending at the Disciplinary Commission. The Commission should be focused on true public harm rather than going on witch hunts against lawyers who dare to criticize judges.

  5. Marijuana is safer than alcohol. AT the time the 1937 Marijuana Tax Act was enacted all major pharmaceutical companies in the US sold marijuana products. 11 Presidents of the US have smoked marijuana. Smoking it does not increase the likelihood that you will get lung cancer. There are numerous reports of canabis oil killing many kinds of incurable cancer. (See Rick Simpson's Oil on the internet or facebook).

ADVERTISEMENT