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. 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

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT