State of Indiana v. David Lott Hardy - 3/31/14

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  March 31, 2014 
10:00 AM  EST

10 a.m. 49A02-1309-CR-756. The State appeals the trial court’s dismissal of its four charges of Class D felony official misconduct against David Lott Hardy (“Hardy”), the former Chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission.  The bases for the charges were four of Hardy’s actions between 2008 and 2010 that allegedly violated Indiana law, including a violation of Indiana ethics laws, a civil law infraction, and two violations of administrative regulations.  Under a previous version of Indiana’s official misconduct statute, Ind. Code § 35-44-1-2 (2010), the State could charge a public servant with official misconduct for “knowingly or intentionally perform[ing] an act that the public servant [was] forbidden by law to perform.”  Historically, the phrase “forbidden by law” included administrative and civil violations such as the ones for which the State charged Hardy.  However, in 2011, the Indiana Legislature amended I.C. § 35-44-1-2 so that a public servant could only be charged for “an offense” committed “in the performance of the public servant’s official duties.”  Pursuant to I.C. § 35-31.5-2-215 and I.C. § 35-31.5-2-75, the term “offense” only encompasses felonies or misdemeanors.  The trial court dismissed the charges against Hardy because it determined that this amendment was remedial in nature and applied to Hardy retroactively, even though his alleged violations occurred before the amendment.  On appeal, the State disputes the trial court’s interpretation of the amendment as remedial and its dismissal of the State’s charges based on a retroactive application of the amendment.

Back to Events
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. 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.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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!

  4. 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.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT