ILNews

Judges uphold theft charge against man

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

On interlocutory appeal, the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of a man’s motion to dismiss his theft charge in Jay County because he caused the delay in the case by absconding. The case brought up the issue of whether knowledge by jail officials on the whereabouts of the defendant can mean that the judge and prosecutor were sufficiently notified.

George Feuston was arrested in Jay County and charged with Class D felony theft on May 3, 2009. While out on bond, he didn’t appear for his pretrial conference and was arrested in Delaware County on an unrelated charge in August 2009. In August 2010, Feuston filed a motion requesting a discharge of his theft charge pursuant to Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) because more than a year had passed since he was arrested in Jay County. In an October 2010 motion, he attached a purported fax correspondence between the Delaware and Jay County jails showing that Jay County jail officials knew he was in the Delaware County jail, but there’s not chronological case summary entry in his Jay County case around the time the fax was sent.

The trial court denied his motion, concluding that he was responsible for all the delay from the time of his pre-trial hearing until August 2010 when he filed his motion.

In George A. Feuston v. State of Indiana, No. 38A02-1011-CR-1175, the judges affirmed the denial of his motion for discharge. The judges rejected his argument that his whereabouts is irrelevant because the trial court could set a trial date regardless of whether he is present, citing Schwartz v. State, 708 N.E.2d 34 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999). But Schwartz says that when the record is silent as for the reason for the delay, it won’t be charged to the defendant.

Judge Terry Crone wrote that the court was not inclined to create duty on the trial courts that they must fill their calendars with “place holder” trial dates for defendants who haven’t appeared or whose whereabouts are unknown.

The judges also discussed the issue of whether the Jay County jail officials had knowledge of Feuston’s location based on the fax presented by Feuston. The majority concluded that knowledge of a police office or correctional officer shouldn’t be imputed to the trial court or prosecutor in these circumstances, citing State ex rel. Johnson v. Kohlmeyer, 261 Ind. 244, 303 N.E.2d 661 (Ind. 1973).
 
Feuston didn’t present any evidence that the trial court or prosecutor knew where he was before he filed his August 2010 motion, so he hasn’t shown he’s entitled to discharge. In addition, he does not have clean hands in the matter since the prosecutor and court lost track of him because he absconded, wrote Judge Crone.

Chief Judge Margret Robb concurred in result because she felt the majority hold was too broad. She wrote that if there was indisputable evidence that jail officials knew where Feuston was and that he was incarcerated in Delaware County, the trial court and prosecutor were sufficiently notified of his whereabouts to begin the Rule 4(C) clock running as of that date.

But in this case, there is only evidence suggesting that the Jay County Jail became aware of his incarceration and the burden is on Feuston to support his claims, which he did not do, she wrote.

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. 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!!!

  2. 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?

  3. 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?

  4. 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.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT