ILNews

Court agrees on ID standard, split on 'injury'

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Requiring police identifications to be recorded isn't a standard the Indiana Court of Appeals is willing to adopt at the moment.

A three-judge appellate panel agrees on that issue, but in a ruling today those judges disagree on a separate appeal claim about a victim's punch to the face.

In Henry Lewis v. State,  No. 49A04-0804-CR-218, the judges found that Marion Superior Special Judge Mark Renner didn't abuse his discretion in admitting photo array evidence during Lewis' jury trial on burglary and robbery charges in February 2008. A witness Lewis was accused of punching in the face identified Lewis and testified about the injury he'd suffered during the incident.

Along with claims that the trial court wrongly refused to tender jury instructions about eyewitness credibility and that the evidence was sufficient to prove a Class B felony robbery that involved "bodily injury," Lewis urged the appellate court to find inadmissible the out-of-court photo arrays used to identify him because they weren't recorded in some manner - written, videotaped, or audio recorded. He cited a New Jersey Supreme Court case of State v. Delgado, 902 A.2d 888, 897 (N.J. 2006), where that court exercised its supervisory powers to require a written record of any out-of-court identification procedure.

"He believes that Indiana courts should adopt this procedure because if the identifications had been recorded, there could be more confidence in the accuracy and integrity of the witnesses' identifications of him," Judge Nancy Vaidik wrote. "We decline Lewis's request to adopt such a procedure."

The court wrote that Lewis offered no Indiana statutory or constitutional provision requiring a recording, and it's not bound by New Jersey law.

While all three judges on the appellate panel agreed with that aspect of the ruling, Judges James Kirsch and Terry Crone wrote separate opinions dissenting with the parts involving the evidence sufficiency as it relates to "bodily injury."

State law defines that phrase as "any impairment of physical condition, including physical pain."

Judge Crone concurred in result and noted that the witness's testimony at trial that he was punched in the face pretty hard was sufficient to establish "bodily injury," but the judge disagreed with the lead opinion's analysis in interpreting state statute defining that phrase. He wrote that it suggests "any degree of pain, no matter how slight, is sufficient to constitute an 'impairment of physical conditions' and therefore constitute 'bodily injury' for purposes of Indiana Code 35-41-1-4. I believe that something more than the mere sensation of pain is required; to hold otherwise is to read 'impairment' out of the statute."

Judge Kirsch took on the same issue, but found the evidence was insufficient.

"The trier of fact could only speculate as to whether the punch amounted to pain," he wrote. "Such speculation is not a reasonable inference drawn from the evidence presented and does not constitute proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the touching by Lewis resulted in bodily injury... in the form of pain. It is reasonable to speculate that (his) adrenaline rush blocked any sensation of pain and this is what he testified."

He would have opted to vacate Lewis's conviction for Class B felony robbery and remand with instructions to enter it as a lesser felony, with the necessary resentencing after that.

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT