High court to hear insurance, drug, murder cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted three cases June 3, including two cases in which the Indiana Court of Appeals were split in their rulings on a drug case and an insurance case.  

In Lisa Gray v. State of Indiana, No.82S01-1106-CR-328, the majority of appellate judges reversed Lisa Gray’s conviction of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana, finding the state failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Gray constructively possessed the drug. The majority cited Gee v. State, 810 N.E.2d 338, 340 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004), to support their decision.

Judge Cale Bradford dissented and disagreed with how the additional circumstances in Gee were used by the majority to determine intent to maintain dominion and control over the drug. He also believed that the state produced evidence that Gray was in close proximity to the marijuana and it was in plain view. That should be more than enough evidence to find she knew of the drug, he wrote.

In Allied Property and Casualty Insurance Co. v. Linda Good and Randall Good, No. 85S04-1106-CV-326, the lower appellate court was split on the definition of “ever” on a home insurance application when it came to whether the homeowners’ insurance coverage was ever “declined, cancelled, or non-renewed.”

A March 2003 fire destroyed Linda and Randall Good’s home. They sued for breach of contract after the insurer held off paying the claim because of the investigation of the fire. Allied countersued, arguing that Linda misrepresented her insurance cancellation history on its application regarding whether she ever had insurance coverage denied or cancelled. The jury awarded more than $1 million in damages to Linda, but the Court of Appeals reversed, finding Linda’s misrepresentation on the application was material.

Judge L. Mark Bailey dissented, finding the application field about past insurance cancellations was unclear as to whether “ever” included all insurance companies or just Allied.

The justices also accepted Brice Webb v. State of Indiana, No. 71S05-1106-CR-329, in which Brice Webb appealed his conviction of murder for shooting his girlfriend. In a not-for-publication decision, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction, finding the trial court didn’t err in refusing to instruct the jury on reckless homicide as a lesser included offense to murder; it didn’t err in allowing the state to charge Webb as an habitual offender beyond the statutory period allowed for amending charges; and it didn’t abuse its discretion in admitting the videotape of Webb’s police interview.

In addition to these cases, the justices also took Richmond State Hospital, et al. v. Paula Brattain, et al., No. 49S02-1106-CV-327.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Lori, you must really love wedding cake stories like this one ... happy enuf ending for you?

  2. This new language about a warning has not been discussed at previous meetings. It's not available online. Since it must be made public knowledge before the vote, does anyone know exactly what it says? Further, this proposal was held up for 5 weeks because members Carol and Lucy insisted that all terms used be defined. So now, definitions are unnecessary and have not been inserted? Beyond these requirements, what is the logic behind giving one free pass to discriminators? Is that how laws work - break it once and that's ok? Just don't do it again? Three members of Carmel's council have done just about everything they can think of to prohibit an anti-discrimination ordinance in Carmel, much to Brainard's consternation, I'm told. These three 'want to be so careful' that they have failed to do what at least 13 other communities, including Martinsville, have already done. It's not being careful. It's standing in the way of what 60% of Carmel residents want. It's hurting CArmel in thT businesses have refused to locate because the council has not gotten with the program. And now they want to give discriminatory one free shot to do so. Unacceptable. Once three members leave the council because they lost their races, the Carmel council will have unanimous approval of the ordinance as originally drafted, not with a one free shot to discriminate freebie. That happens in January 2016. Why give a freebie when all we have to do is wait 3 months and get an ordinance with teeth from Day 1? If nothing else, can you please get s copy from Carmel and post it so we can see what else has changed in the proposal?

  3. Here is an interesting 2012 law review article for any who wish to dive deeper into this subject matter: Excerpt: "Judicial interpretation of the ADA has extended public entity liability to licensing agencies in the licensure and certification of attorneys.49 State bar examiners have the authority to conduct fitness investigations for the purpose of determining whether an applicant is a direct threat to the public.50 A “direct threat” is defined as “a significant risk to the health or safety of others that cannot be eliminated by a modification of policies, practices or procedures, or by the provision of auxiliary aids or services as provided by § 35.139.”51 However, bar examiners may not utilize generalizations or stereotypes about the applicant’s disability in concluding that an applicant is a direct threat.52"

  4. We have been on the waiting list since 2009, i was notified almost 4 months ago that we were going to start receiving payments and we still have received nothing. Every time I call I'm told I just have to wait it's in the lawyers hands. Is everyone else still waiting?

  5. I hope you dont mind but to answer my question. What amendment does this case pretain to?