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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  2. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  3. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

  4. Why in the world would someone need a person to correct a transcript when a realtime court reporter could provide them with a transcript (rough draft) immediately?

  5. This article proved very enlightening. Right ahead of sitting the LSAT for the first time, I felt a sense of relief that a score of 141 was admitted to an Indiana Law School and did well under unique circumstances. While my GPA is currently 3.91 I fear standardized testing and hope that I too will get a good enough grade for acceptance here at home. Thanks so much for this informative post.

ADVERTISEMENT