ILNews

COA: Court should not have imposed 2-mile ban as part of probation

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals found a trial court abused its discretion when it originally imposed a probation condition prohibiting a man from going within two miles of where he committed battery against a stranger.

Wayne Hurd was convicted of Class B misdemeanor battery for grabbing Susan Schneider from behind a bus stop at 39th and College Avenue in Indianapolis. The two did not know each other. She kicked Hurd in the groin and ran home to call police. At his trial, Hurd denied touching Schneider and explained that he had been diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia and was taking medication.

Hurd’s public defender wanted Hurd’s mother to testify about his mental illness and demeanor, but she was not identified as a potential witness until the morning of the trial. The trial court did not let her testify, which Hurd challenged on appeal. The Court of Appeals affirmed because the offer of proof was not specific as to the substance of Hurd’s mother’s testimony, she was not present at the bus stop, and the trial court found the victim’s testimony credible and Hurd’s testimony to have gaps.

Hurd also challenged the original probation condition imposed in August 2013 that he stay approximately two miles away from 38th and College Avenue. Although the trial court amended the condition three months later to a “one block radius” of Schneider’s home, the probation department filed a notice of probation violation less than two weeks after the original condition was imposed. It alleged he was in the area of 4100 N. College Ave. on Aug. 11.

“It was reasonable for the trial court to express concern for Hurd’s mental health, and the court did so by ordering Hurd to comply with his treatment regimen at Gallahue. Further, given that Hurd’s conviction was for a crime against a person, it was also reasonable for the court to prohibit contact with Susan. However, prohibiting Hurd from entering a significant area of the central part of Indianapolis is not tailored to his rehabilitation or public safety,” Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote in Wayne Hurd v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1309-CR-753.

The judges remanded with instructions to vacate any pending probation violations based upon the original condition.
 

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. Family court judges never fail to surprise me with their irrational thinking. First of all any man who abuses his wife is not fit to be a parent. A man who can't control his anger should not be allowed around his child unsupervised period. Just because he's never been convicted of abusing his child doesn't mean he won't and maybe he hasn't but a man that has such poor judgement and control is not fit to parent without oversight - only a moron would think otherwise. Secondly, why should the mother have to pay? He's the one who made the poor decisions to abuse and he should be the one to pay the price - monetarily and otherwise. Yes it's sad that the little girl may be deprived of her father, but really what kind of father is he - the one that abuses her mother the one that can't even step up and do what's necessary on his own instead the abused mother is to pay for him???? What is this Judge thinking? Another example of how this world rewards bad behavior and punishes those who do right. Way to go Judge - NOT.

  2. Right on. Legalize it. We can take billions away from the drug cartels and help reduce violence in central America and more unwanted illegal immigration all in one fell swoop. cut taxes on the savings from needless incarcerations. On and stop eroding our fourth amendment freedom or whatever's left of it.

  3. "...a switch from crop production to hog production "does not constitute a significant change."??? REALLY?!?! Any judge that cannot see a significant difference between a plant and an animal needs to find another line of work.

  4. Why do so many lawyers get away with lying in court, Jamie Yoak?

  5. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

ADVERTISEMENT