ILNews

Judges rule state lacks authority to appeal dismissed case

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals dismissed the state’s appeal of a criminal case in which a trial court granted the state’s motion to dismiss.

In State of Indiana v. Raymond P. Coleman, 29A05-1108-CR-435, the Court of Appeals held that the state had no grounds to attempt to reinstate two counts of Class B felony criminal confinement, two counts of Class C felony battery, and one count of Class D felony pointing a firearm against Raymond Coleman for an alleged incident.

The state requested the dismissal, and the trial court granted it, after Coleman objected to the state’s request that the court declare the victim unavailable and enter her deposition testimony into evidence.

The court declined to find the victim unavailable, preventing deposition testimony from being admitted into evidence. After the trial court denied the state’s motion to reconsider, the state moved to dismiss, which the court granted.

In its appeal, the state argued that Indiana Code 35-38-4-2(5) gave the state authority to appeal by stating appeals are permitted “from an order granting a motion to suppress evidence, if the ultimate effect of the order is to preclude further prosecution.”

But the unanimous appeals court ruling held that Coleman didn’t move to suppress evidence, but rather objected on the basis that she was not an available witness.

“In light of the clear language of the statute, we are not at liberty to conclude that the legislature has authorized the state to appeal any adverse evidentiary ruling that deals a fatal blow to the state’s case,” Senior Judge William Garrard wrote for the unanimous panel.

 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT