ILNews

Judges uphold college student's rape conviction

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The man charged with raping a fellow Vincennes University student following a night of drinking had his conviction affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals.

Jason Michael Palilonis challenged his Class B felony conviction of raping B.S., claiming the trial court abused its discretion when it denied his motion to correct error based on alleged juror misconduct; when it allowed the jury to be informed that B.S. was unavailable because she was deceased; in admitting statements made by B.S. during the course of her sexual-assault examination; when it admitted the vouching statements made by the nurse who performed B.S.’s sexual-assault examination; and when it admitted the statements Palilonis made during his interview with law enforcement after the incident. He also claimed there wasn’t sufficient evidence to support the rape conviction.  

Palilonis and B.S. met at a party and had sex. The next night, they were drinking at the same party. B.S. eventually went to a friend’s apartment and passed out on the couch. Palilonis showed up and attempted to have sex with her. A witness saw Palilonis having sex with B.S. Palilonis was beat up by some of B.S.’s friends, and B.S. woke up and went to the hospital for an examination.

About a year after the incident, B.S. committed suicide.

Several days after the jury convicted Palilonis, one juror claimed that the jury learned through the foreperson that the presiding judge told high school students visiting his courtroom that he thought Palilonis was guilty. A special judge heard the misconduct allegations but denied Palilonis’ motion to set aside the verdict.

The Court of Appeals ruled against Palilonis on all of his arguments except for his challenge to allowing vouching statements made by the nurse who examined B.S. to be admitted. The nurse testified that B.S.’s case was noteworthy to her because B.S.’s statement that she was raped was believable, but this is impermissible vouching testimony, noted Judge Nancy Vaidik in Jason Michael Palilonis v. State of Indiana, 42A05-1104-CR-197. It did not rise to the level of fundamental error, however.

 

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. 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!!!

  3. 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?

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT