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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. The appellate court just said doctors can be sued for reporting child abuse. The most dangerous form of child abuse with the highest mortality rate of any form of child abuse (between 6% and 9% according to the below listed studies). Now doctors will be far less likely to report this form of dangerous child abuse in Indiana. If you want to know what this is, google the names Lacey Spears, Julie Conley (and look at what happened when uninformed judges returned that child against medical advice), Hope Ybarra, and Dixie Blanchard. Here is some really good reporting on what this allegation was: http://media.star-telegram.com/Munchausenmoms/ Here are the two research papers: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0145213487900810 http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0145213403000309 25% of sibling are dead in that second study. 25%!!! Unbelievable ruling. Chilling. Wrong.

  2. MELISA EVA VALUE INVESTMENT Greetings to you from Melisa Eva Value Investment. We offer Business and Personal loans, it is quick and easy and hence can be availed without any hassle. We do not ask for any collateral or guarantors while approving these loans and hence these loans require minimum documentation. We offer great and competitive interest rates of 2% which do not weigh you down too much. These loans have a comfortable pay-back period. Apply today by contacting us on E-mail: melisaeva9@gmail.com WE DO NOT ASK FOR AN UPFRONT FEE. BEWARE OF SCAMMERS AND ONLINE FRAUD.

  3. Mr. Levin says that the BMV engaged in misconduct--that the BMV (or, rather, someone in the BMV) knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged fees but did nothing to correct the situation. Such misconduct, whether engaged in by one individual or by a group, is called theft (defined as knowingly or intentionally exerting unauthorized control over the property of another person with the intent to deprive the other person of the property's value or use). Theft is a crime in Indiana (as it still is in most of the civilized world). One wonders, then, why there have been no criminal prosecutions of BMV officials for this theft? Government misconduct doesn't occur in a vacuum. An individual who works for or oversees a government agency is responsible for the misconduct. In this instance, somebody (or somebodies) with the BMV, at some time, knew Indiana motorists were being overcharged. What's more, this person (or these people), even after having the error of their ways pointed out to them, did nothing to fix the problem. Instead, the overcharges continued. Thus, the taxpayers of Indiana are also on the hook for the millions of dollars in attorneys fees (for both sides; the BMV didn't see fit to avail itself of the services of a lawyer employed by the state government) that had to be spent in order to finally convince the BMV that stealing money from Indiana motorists was a bad thing. Given that the BMV official(s) responsible for this crime continued their misconduct, covered it up, and never did anything until the agency reached an agreeable settlement, it seems the statute of limitations for prosecuting these folks has not yet run. I hope our Attorney General is paying attention to this fiasco and is seriously considering prosecution. Indiana, the state that works . . . for thieves.

  4. I'm glad that attorney Carl Hayes, who represented the BMV in this case, is able to say that his client "is pleased to have resolved the issue". Everyone makes mistakes, even bureaucratic behemoths like Indiana's BMV. So to some extent we need to be forgiving of such mistakes. But when those mistakes are going to cost Indiana taxpayers millions of dollars to rectify (because neither plaintiff's counsel nor Mr. Hayes gave freely of their services, and the BMV, being a state-funded agency, relies on taxpayer dollars to pay these attorneys their fees), the agency doesn't have a right to feel "pleased to have resolved the issue". One is left wondering why the BMV feels so pleased with this resolution? The magnitude of the agency's overcharges might suggest to some that, perhaps, these errors were more than mere oversight. Could this be why the agency is so "pleased" with this resolution? Will Indiana motorists ever be assured that the culture of incompetence (if not worse) that the BMV seems to have fostered is no longer the status quo? Or will even more "overcharges" and lawsuits result? It's fairly obvious who is really "pleased to have resolved the issue", and it's not Indiana's taxpayers who are on the hook for the legal fees generated in these cases.

  5. From the article's fourth paragraph: "Her work underscores the blurry lines in Russia between the government and businesses . . ." Obviously, the author of this piece doesn't pay much attention to the "blurry lines" between government and businesses that exist in the United States. And I'm not talking only about Trump's alleged conflicts of interest. When lobbyists for major industries (pharmaceutical, petroleum, insurance, etc) have greater access to this country's elected representatives than do everyday individuals (i.e., voters), then I would say that the lines between government and business in the United States are just as blurry, if not more so, than in Russia.

ADVERTISEMENT