ILNews

Death penalty, election arguments Thursday

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will hear arguments Thursday in a death penalty case, a dispute whether the elected mayor of Terre Haute was eligible to run for office, and whether an order for a mother's voluntary termination of parental rights should have been set aside.

At 9 a.m., the justices will hear Daniel Ray Wilkes v. State of Indiana, No. 10S00-0808-DP-453. Daniel Ray Wilkes was convicted in Clark County for the murders of an Evansville woman and her two children. The jury failed to reach a unanimous decision as to Wilkes' sentence, so Vanderburgh Circuit Judge Carl Heldt issued a death sentence.

This was the first time since Indiana law changed in 2002 that a judge had to determine the sentence in a capital murder case after a jury deadlocked. The state law amendment requires judges to follow jury sentencing recommendations in capital cases. In the direct appeal, Wilkes argued various errors occurred during his trial and sentencing.

Arguments in Kevin D. Burke v. Duke Bennett, No. 84S01-0904-CV-148, begin at 10:05 a.m. Duke Bennett was elected mayor of Terre Haute in 2007, but his opponent, Kevin Burke, contested the election because he claimed Bennett was ineligible to run for office since he worked for a nonprofit that received federal funds. Bennett was declared the winner, but the Indiana Court of Appeals in a 2-1 decision reversed and held that Bennett is disqualified, the mayor's office is vacant, and a special election is required.

The high court will also hear arguments at 10:55 a.m. in a case involving the denial of a mother's motion to set aside an order for voluntary termination of her parental rights. In the case In Re: Termination of parent-child relationship of M.B. and S.B., No. 34S02-0805-JV-437, the Howard Circuit Court denied the mother's Trial 60(B) motion to set aside the order voluntarily ending her parental rights. The Court of Appeals affirmed in the matter of first impression, ruling the addendum to her consent providing for post-adoption visitation was unenforceable because a partial termination of parental rights doesn't exist under Indiana law and severing the addendum didn't frustrate the basic purpose of the remainder of the agreement.

All arguments will be webcast live from the Supreme Court courtroom.

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. The ADA acts as a tax upon all for the benefit of a few. And, most importantly, the many have no individual say in whether they pay the tax. Those with handicaps suffered in military service should get a pass, but those who are handicapped by accident or birth do NOT deserve that pass. The drivel about "equal access" is spurious because the handicapped HAVE equal access, they just can't effectively use it. That is their problem, not society's. The burden to remediate should be that of those who seek the benefit of some social, constructional, or dimensional change, NOT society generally. Everybody wants to socialize the costs and concentrate the benefits of government intrusion so that they benefit and largely avoid the costs. This simply maintains the constant push to the slop trough, and explains, in part, why the nation is 20 trillion dollars in the hole.

  2. Hey 2 psychs is never enough, since it is statistically unlikely that three will ever agree on anything! New study admits this pseudo science is about as scientifically valid as astrology ... done by via fortune cookie ....John Ioannidis, professor of health research and policy at Stanford University, said the study was impressive and that its results had been eagerly awaited by the scientific community. “Sadly, the picture it paints - a 64% failure rate even among papers published in the best journals in the field - is not very nice about the current status of psychological science in general, and for fields like social psychology it is just devastating,” he said. http://www.theguardian.com/science/2015/aug/27/study-delivers-bleak-verdict-on-validity-of-psychology-experiment-results

  3. Indianapolis Bar Association President John Trimble and I are on the same page, but it is a very large page with plenty of room for others to join us. As my final Res Gestae article will express in more detail in a few days, the Great Recession hastened a fundamental and permanent sea change for the global legal service profession. Every state bar is facing the same existential questions that thrust the medical profession into national healthcare reform debates. The bench, bar, and law schools must comprehensively reconsider how we define the practice of law and what it means to access justice. If the three principals of the legal service profession do not recast the vision of their roles and responsibilities soon, the marketplace will dictate those roles and responsibilities without regard for the public interests that the legal profession professes to serve.

  4. I have met some highly placed bureaucrats who vehemently disagree, Mr. Smith. This is not your father's time in America. Some ideas are just too politically incorrect too allow spoken, says those who watch over us for the good of their concept of order.

  5. Lets talk about this without forgetting that Lawyers, too, have FREEDOM OF SPEECH AND ASSOCIATION

ADVERTISEMENT