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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT