COA named as defendant in federal lawsuit

Jennifer Nelson
January 1, 2007
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a conviction for Class C felony nonsupport of a dependant, despite the court being named as a defendant in a federal suit filed by the disgruntled appellant-defendant.

In Christopher J. Stephens v. State of Indiana, 20A05-0702-CR-95, Stephens appealed his felony conviction of nonsupport of his child, as well as issues that should have been challenged during his child support proceedings or trial on the matter.

Unhappy with the results of his child support order and conviction, Stephens and his father, Michael Jack Stephens, filed a federal lawsuit in the U.S. District court, Southern District of Indiana, against "all members" of the Indiana Court of Appeals, Michael Jack and Christopher Joe Stephens, et al. v. Elkhart County Superior Court No. 6, et al. 1:07-CV-0671-LJM-TAB.

In a footnote, Judge Michael Barnes references the lawsuit, "Because the lawsuit names 'all members,' it would be impossible to resolve this present appeal if all the judges of this court recused themselves. Therefore, the 'rule of necessity' mandates that we address this appeal because there is no one else to do it."

In the Court of Appeals opinion, Stephens brought up four issues for appeal: whether the trial court properly prohibited him from collaterally attacking the child support order entered by another court in a prior proceeding; whether the trial court properly denied his Baston challenge; whether the trial court properly rejected his affirmative defense of inability to pay; and whether there was sufficient evidence to enhance his conviction to a Class C felony of nonsupport.

Stephens had a child with Jessica Sluss and was originally order to pay her $64 a week in child support. Sluss petitioned for a modification of the order, which Stephens attended with no attorney, did not present documents showing his weekly or yearly earnings, and brought to court paperwork that reflected he earned $1,375.77 a week as a truck driver. Stephens claimed more than $850 came out of that total to cover fuel costs. The trial court increased his weekly support payments to $263.26 based on the $1,375.77. The trial court told Stephens in September 2004 that until he presented documentation to show his weekly gross income, that amount would stand.

Stephens never petitioned to modify the order and never made any payments to Sluss. He did not show up for court, was arrested in Georgia, and in January 2006 was charged with Class D felony nonsupport between July and November 2005 and Class C felony for nonsupport in excess of $15,000.

A jury found Stephens guilty of the Class D felony charge, and the trial court heard the enhancement portion of the trial and found him guilty of the Class C felony.

During the trial, Stephens was collaterally estopped from arguing the validity of the child support order increasing his weekly payments. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in collaterally estopping Stephens because child support modification orders must be challenged during proceedings or by direct appeal from the proceedings and not relitigated at the criminal court, wrote Judge Barnes.

The trial court was also not erroneous in overruling Stephen's objection to dismissing the only potential African-American juror. The trial court record shows the juror was dismissed because she said she found it difficult to accept how someone who was in prison and unable to pay child support could be convicted, not because of her race or gender.

The trial court correctly established that Stephens did not adequately prove his inability to pay the modified child support amount. The jury and trial court considered all evidence, including Stephens' and his father's testimony. The Court of Appeals also affirmed his conviction of the Class D felony based on state statute and evidence of arrearage presented during the bench trial, including testimony from the Elkhart Prosecutor's Office Child Support Division.

In May 2007, Stephens and his father filed the federal lawsuit naming several defendants, including the entire Court of Appeals, attorney general, Elkhart County Sheriff, and Elkhart County judges. In the brief, Stephens and his father contend the "judges, lawyers, court officers, CASA, and the like" did not follow the law and had "the Indiana Code and Child Support Guidelines been followed instead of being rewritten by the judge, we would NOT have this action to perform."

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. We do not have 10% of our population (which would mean about 32 million) incarcerated. It's closer to 2%.

  2. If a class action suit or other manner of retribution is possible, count me in. I have email and voicemail from the man. He colluded with opposing counsel, I am certain. My case was damaged so severely it nearly lost me everything and I am still paying dearly.

  3. There's probably a lot of blame that can be cast around for Indiana Tech's abysmal bar passage rate this last February. The folks who decided that Indiana, a state with roughly 16,000 to 18,000 attorneys, needs a fifth law school need to question the motives that drove their support of this project. Others, who have been "strong supporters" of the law school, should likewise ask themselves why they believe this institution should be supported. Is it because it fills some real need in the state? Or is it, instead, nothing more than a resume builder for those who teach there part-time? And others who make excuses for the students' poor performance, especially those who offer nothing more than conspiracy theories to back up their claims--who are they helping? What evidence do they have to support their posturing? Ultimately, though, like most everything in life, whether one succeeds or fails is entirely within one's own hands. At least one student from Indiana Tech proved this when he/she took and passed the February bar. A second Indiana Tech student proved this when they took the bar in another state and passed. As for the remaining 9 who took the bar and didn't pass (apparently, one of the students successfully appealed his/her original score), it's now up to them (and nobody else) to ensure that they pass on their second attempt. These folks should feel no shame; many currently successful practicing attorneys failed the bar exam on their first try. These same attorneys picked themselves up, dusted themselves off, and got back to the rigorous study needed to ensure they would pass on their second go 'round. This is what the Indiana Tech students who didn't pass the first time need to do. Of course, none of this answers such questions as whether Indiana Tech should be accredited by the ABA, whether the school should keep its doors open, or, most importantly, whether it should have even opened its doors in the first place. Those who promoted the idea of a fifth law school in Indiana need to do a lot of soul-searching regarding their decisions. These same people should never be allowed, again, to have a say about the future of legal education in this state or anywhere else. Indiana already has four law schools. That's probably one more than it really needs. But it's more than enough.

  4. This man Steve Hubbard goes on any online post or forum he can find and tries to push his company. He said court reporters would be obsolete a few years ago, yet here we are. How does he have time to search out every single post about court reporters and even spy in private court reporting forums if his company is so successful???? Dude, get a life. And back to what this post was about, I agree that some national firms cause a huge problem.

  5. rensselaer imdiana is doing same thing to children from the judge to attorney and dfs staff they need to be investigated as well