ILNews

Court interprets revised procedural statute

Michael W. Hoskins
January 1, 2008
Keywords
Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share
The Indiana Court of Appeals has found strong and compelling evidence to apply retroactivity to a procedural state statute lawmakers changed last year following a ruling from Indiana Supreme Court.

In Mark Hurst v. State of Indiana, No. 64A03-0710-CR-490, the appellate court affirmed a Porter Superior judge's ruling that the court properly amended charging information 15 months after the original omnibus date, that sufficient evidence of seriously bodily injury existed to support a felony battery conviction, and that Hurst was properly sentenced to nine years.

The case involves a battery on the woman that Hurst was living with off and on for about five years, who was also the mother of Hurst's child. In July 2005, the two got into an argument and Hurst came over to the woman's home, kicked in the door, and beat her to the point of unconsciousness. The state charged him with felony rape, residential entry, domestic battery, and a misdemeanor for interference with reporting a crime. Charges were later amended twice in January 2007 to ramp up the seriousness of his alleged actions.

A main issue in the case was whether modifications were allowed in charging information related to matters of substance when the substantial rights of the defendant were not prejudiced. Prior to last year, caselaw allowed that. But the Indiana Supreme Court ruled Jan. 16, 2007, in Fajardo v. State, 859 N.E.2d 1201 (Ind. 2007), to interpret Indiana Code 35-34-1-5(b), holding that when a person is charged with a felony, any amendments are only allowed if it's more than 30 days before the omnibus date, regardless of whether the defendant's rights are prejudiced.

Lawmakers revised that statute allowing the state to amend charges before a trial starts as long as the amendment doesn't prejudice the defendant's substantial rights. It took effect May 8, 2007.

In Hurst, parties disagree which statute applied - the former version as interpreted by Fajardo or the current version enacted during Hurst's trial. Hurst doesn't want the new statute to apply because it allowed the change in charging information.

"This prompt return to pre-Fajardo law indicates urgency in the legislature's desire to negate the effects of Fajardo," the court wrote today. "Though the legislature did not expressively provide for retroactive application of the amended statute, we are confident that this was the clear intent of such legislation. Therefore, the current statute applies."

The appellate court found no error because Hurst had reasonable time to prepare for and defend against the amended charges.
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