ILNews

Former IURC chair’s appeal raises questions on official misconduct law

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Did a former state utility regulator’s behavior that got him fired rise to official misconduct if he committed no crime? An Indiana Court of Appeals panel grappled with that question, as well as which version of the law applies, during oral arguments March 31.

The state is appealing the dismissal last August of four Class D felony official misconduct counts against David Lott Hardy in Marion Superior Court in a case with sharply differing arguments as to what constitutes a crime.
 

hardy-david-lott-mug Hardy

Hardy was fired as chairman of the Indiana Utility Regulatory Commission by former Gov. Mitch Daniels after he was accused of allowing ex-IURC administrative law judge and general counsel Scott Storms to work on a number of Duke Energy cases pending before the commission at the same time Storms was trying to land a job with Duke. The basis of the four official misconduct charges include accusations that Hardy lobbied Duke officials on Storms’ behalf behind the scenes, and that Hardy received improper ex parte communications.

Hardy’s lawyer said the fact that his client lost his job was the ultimate punishment, because while his conduct violated state ethics rules, he broke no laws. An attorney for the state countered that laws don’t have to be broken for someone in a position of public trust to be charged with official misconduct.

Presiding Judge Paul Mathias and Judges Cale Bradford and Rudy R. Pyle III quizzed lawyers over whether the law in place at the time Hardy was charged should apply or whether the statute as amended governs. Judges also questioned whether the statute in place at the time Hardy was charged was unconstitutionally vague.

Ellen Meilaender of the attorney general’s office argued that the charges against Hardy should be reinstated. She said the trial court rejected arguments that the former official misconduct statute, I.C. 35-44-1-2, was unconstitutionally vague. Official misconduct requires a nexus, she said – “it had to be something done in connection with official duties.” Meilaender said that could include a violation of administrative rules or policies short of a crime.

Attorney David J. Hensel urged the panel to affirm dismissal of the charges against Hardy on the basis of statutory vagueness. He argued that the Legislature acted quickly to amend the statute as I.C. 35-44.1-1-1 after Hardy was charged. The amended law defines official misconduct as a Class D felony when a public servant “commits an offense in the performance of the public servant’s official duties.”

The Legislature intended the amendment to be retroactive, Hensel argued, based on “the speed at which the Legislature responded to notification of a defect in the law” in a report from the inspector general. Lawmakers acted within five months, Hensel explained.

Cynthia Baker, Indiana University McKinney School of Law director of the Program on Law and State Government, said the Legislature didn’t specify that its 2012 amendment was retroactive, so she doubts it would be applied remedially.

“The General Assembly does not recognize official legislative history, so the law is the words that the Legislature puts in the statute,” she said.

Even with the amended language, though, Baker believes the applicability of the law is open to interpretation, and she calls the statute “very aspirational.”

“In our hearts, we don’t want our public officials to do bad things,” she said. “In a court of law, for a prosecution, you have to have specific acts to demonstrate they committed a particular crime.”

Still, Baker said the revised statute leaves unsettled the question of whether someone may be charged with official misconduct for acts that are not crimes. She noted the statute’s language doesn’t specify a criminal offense.

During oral arguments, though, Pyle challenged the notion that someone could be charged with official misconduct as a result of acts like policy violations that are less than a crime. He asked Meilaender to cite such a case that had been upheld on appeal, and she could not.

Nevertheless, judges at times appeared to be looking for a middle ground.

Assuming the accusations against Hardy are true, Bradford said, “He’s not going to be nominated for public servant of the year anytime soon. … What’s the public to do?”

Hensel replied that Hardy has already been sanctioned as the law allows by being fired, and he said three of the counts against him are based on communication that was brought to him but he didn’t initiate. “I don’t think the Legislature ever meant this to be a crime,” Hensel said. He also said no criminal offenses may be based on violation of administrative rules.

Baker said issues in State v. Hardy, 49A02-1309-CR-756, seem to mirror a 2008 public intoxication case that wound up being decided by the Indiana Supreme Court in 2011, Brenda Moore v. State. Moore was convicted of public intoxication for being in the back seat of a parked car. While she unsuccessfully argued that the state had a public policy interest in encouraging intoxicated people not to drive, the Legislature revised the public intoxication statute shortly after her case was affirmed.

“That’s an example of a law that served us well for a while, and when (lawmakers) saw it in a particular light, they changed the law,” Baker said. “It didn’t change the outcome for Brenda Moore, but it changed the outcome going forward.”

Attorney General Greg Zoeller in a statement after oral arguments said the charges against Hardy should be reinstated and remanded to Marion Superior Court.

“For the public to have confidence in our laws there must be public accountability; and individuals who hold positions of public trust ought to be held to a very high standard.  My office, working with (Marion County Prosecutor Terry Curry), maintains that the official misconduct statute that was on the books in 2010 should be enforced against this defendant, since the Legislature when it changed the law in 2012 did not make the change retroactive,” Zoeller said.•
 

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT