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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT