ILNews

Court grants 1 transfer, denies 36

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2007
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Supreme Court will decide whether counsel can inspect police reports that are already used by the state to refresh the recollection of a witness at trial.

Last week, the high court granted one transfer out of more than three dozen cases considered for review by the state's high court. The case Thabit Gault v. State of Indiana , 27A02-0603-CR-224, involves a Grant County man's appeal of his 2004 arrest relating to felony possession of cocaine with intent to deliver.

At trial, defense attorney Shane Beal cross-examined an officer who'd arrested Gault and, after the officer expressed uncertainty, the prosecutor gave him a copy of the police report to read before testifying. Beal asked for time to read the report, but the prosecutor invoked the work product privilege and the trial court determined it was not discoverable evidence and denied the request.

On appeal, Gault contended that he and his attorney should have been permitted to review the report pursuant to Indiana Evidence Rule 612. The Court of Appeals affirmed that in a 2-1 decision Feb. 13, holding that the trial court should have allowed Gault to see the report but that the denial did not constitute reversible error. Judge Nancy Vaidik dissented.

Arguments have not been set for this case. Along with this transfer, the justices denied transfer of 36 cases - including John Doe v. Town of Plainfield (http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/02060701jts.pdf), which the Court of Appeals decided in February that a resident can sue the city anonymously in opposition of an ordinance banning sex offenders from parks and recreational areas.
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. Can I get this form on line,if not where can I obtain one. I am eligible.

  2. What a fine example of the best of the Hoosier tradition! How sad that the AP has to include partisan snark in the obit for this great American patriot and adventurer.

  3. Why are all these lawyers yakking to the media about pending matters? Trial by media? What the devil happened to not making extrajudicial statements? The system is falling apart.

  4. It is a sad story indeed as this couple has been only in survival mode, NOT found guilty with Ponzi, shaken down for 5 years and pursued by prosecution that has been ignited by a civil suit with very deep pockets wrenched in their bitterness...It has been said that many of us are breaking an average of 300 federal laws a day without even knowing it. Structuring laws, & civilForfeiture laws are among the scariest that need to be restructured or repealed . These laws were initially created for drug Lords and laundering money and now reach over that line. Here you have a couple that took out their own money, not drug money, not laundering. Yes...Many upset that they lost money...but how much did they make before it all fell apart? No one ask that question? A civil suit against Williams was awarded because he has no more money to fight...they pushed for a break in order...they took all his belongings...even underwear, shoes and clothes? who does that? What allows that? Maybe if you had the picture of him purchasing a jacket at the Goodwill just to go to court the next day...his enemy may be satisfied? But not likely...bitterness is a master. For happy ending lovers, you will be happy to know they have a faith that has changed their world and a solid love that many of us can only dream about. They will spend their time in federal jail for taking their money from their account, but at the end of the day they have loyal friends, a true love and a hope of a new life in time...and none of that can be bought or taken That is the real story.

  5. Could be his email did something especially heinous, really over the top like questioning Ind S.Ct. officials or accusing JLAP of being the political correctness police.

ADVERTISEMENT