ILNews

COA rules on stipulation requirement

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
Prosecutors must be allowed to present their cases as they see fit and not be forced into agreements, the Indiana Court of Appeals confirmed today.

In State of Indiana v. Harold Lewis, No. 72A05-0610-CR-564, the three-judge panel unanimously reversed and remanded the case to Scott Superior Judge Nicholas South. The trial judge had determined in 2006 to grant the defendant's motion prohibiting prosecutors from mentioning the death of the man who Lewis had shot. He was being tried on a felony charge of criminal recklessness that Lewis had "knowingly or intentionally inflicted serious bodily injury" onto Dennis Hensley by shooting him in the right leg with a shotgun. Hensley died a day later.

Lewis argued that mentioning Hensley's death would be prejudicial because the state already planned to present photos showing Hensley's wound and him lying in a pool of blood. Lewis agreed to a stipulation allowing prosecutors to tell the jury he'd caused "serious bodily injury," but the state refused. Judge South granted the motion preventing a mention of Hensley's death and allowing the stipulation.

On interlocutory appeal, the state contended it should be able to present its case how it wishes and not be forced into a stipulation, while Lewis argued that "serious bodily injury" was abundantly clear from the photos not being challenged at trial and that mentioning death wouldn't be relevant but would be unfairly inflammatory.

The appellate court disagreed. Judge Terry Crone wrote that caselaw has already determined death falls into the category of serious bodily injury; he cited Nelson v. State, 664 N.E.2d 386, 388 (Ind. Ct. App. 1996) as authority. In deciding that the state couldn't be forced into the stipulation, the court relied on Perigo v. State, 541 N.E.2d 936, 940 (Ind. 1989) that held a party can refuse to stipulate to any facts; and Hines v. State, 801 N.E. 2d 634, 635 (Ind. 2004), that held the state is entitled to prove its case by evidence of its own choice and criminal defendants can't stipulate their way out of full evidentiary forces of a case being presented.

"Applying the aforementioned law to the present dispute, we must conclude that while Lewis was free to request a stipulation regarding serious bodily injury, the State was not required to agree," Judge Crone wrote, noting that all gory photos and the fact that Hensley died are "fair game" as long as they adhere to the Indiana Rules of Evidence.

In today's opinion, Judge Crone also wrote a footnote on Page 6 of the opinion pointing out an eight-month delay in this case being transferred from the appellate clerk's office to the court - despite it being an interlocutory appeal that gets expedited according to the state's appellate rules. This is the fifth such delay pointed out in opinions since late last year, although the appellate clerk has told Indiana Lawyer that the internal office backlog causing delays was resolved in late February. None of the opinions to date have described delays occurring since then.
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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT