ILNews

Granted transfers include hearsay case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted two transfers, including a case involving whether a warrant based on hearsay was supported by probable cause or fell under the good faith exception.

In George Jackson v. State of Indiana, No. 48A02-0711-CR-988, the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed George Jackson's conviction of unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. The court found the affidavit used to grant the search warrant of Jackson's home wasn't supported by information that established the credibility of the informant or contained information that established the totality of the circumstances corroborates the hearsay.

Chief Judge John Baker dissented, writing the search warrant was supported by probable cause. Even though the detective's sworn testimony that led to the search warrant was based on hearsay, his testimony was sufficient to support issuing the search warrant, wrote the chief judge. Even if probable cause didn't exist, Chief Judge Baker believed the good faith exception applies.

In Scottie R. Adams v. State of Indiana, No. 71A03-0711-CR-526, Scottie Adams' convictions of voluntary manslaughter, carrying a handgun without a license, and the finding he is a habitual offender were affirmed by the appellate court. Because the evidence showed Adams may have acted under sudden heat when he shot the victim, the trial court properly instructed the jury on the offense of voluntary manslaughter. The Indiana Court of Appeals also concluded Adams failed to show that a witness' refusal to testify because he felt threatened had a prejudicial impact on the jury to the extent a mistrial was warranted.

Judge Patricia Riley dissented, finding the trial court should have granted Adams' motion for a mistral because the jury wasn't presented with evidence showing Adams was somehow responsible for causing the witness to fear testifying or establishing Adams wasn't connected to the witness' fears. Judge Riley wrote she would reverse Adams' convictions and habitual offender finding and allow the state to retry him.

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. Just an aside, but regardless of the outcome, I 'm proud of Judge William Hughes. He was the original magistrate on the Home place issue. He ruled for Home Place, and was primaried by Brainard for it. Their tool Poindexter failed to unseat Hughes, who won support for his honesty and courage throughout the county, and he was reelected Judge of Hamilton County's Superior Court. You can still stand for something and survive. Thanks, Judge Hughes!

  2. CCHP's real accomplishment is the 2015 law signed by Gov Pence that basically outlaws any annexation that is forced where a 65% majority of landowners in the affected area disagree. Regardless of whether HP wins or loses, the citizens of Indiana will not have another fiasco like this. The law Gov Pence signed is a direct result of this malgovernance.

  3. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  4. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  5. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

ADVERTISEMENT