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. 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?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT