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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT