ILNews

Justices take 2 cases

Back to TopE-mailPrint

The Indiana Supreme Court has accepted the case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals split in reversing a man’s Class A felony attempted murder conviction.

The justices took Tyrus D. Coleman v. State of Indiana, No. 20S03-1008-CR-458, in which the majority ruled the doctrine of issue preclusion barred the state from re-litgating the issue of whether Tyrus Coleman’s actions against Anthony Dye constituted attempted murder. Coleman shot Dye twice during a confrontation at a recording studio.

The majority reversed the denial of Coleman’s motion to dismiss his attempted murder charge by reason of collateral estoppel. The jury wasn’t able to reach a verdict as to his attempted murder charge and another trial on that charge was scheduled.

Judge Carr Darden dissented, disagreeing that issue preclusion applies to the instant case. He concluded the trial court didn’t abuse its discretion in allowing Coleman to be re-tried for attempted murder.

The justices issued an order Monday accepting transfer in the case Lamar Advertising Inc. v. View Outdoor Advertising LLC and State of Indiana, Dept. of Transportation, No. 49S05-1008-CV-459. They summarily affirmed the Court of Appeals’ decision instructing the Indiana Department of Transportation to allow the parties to file new applications for a billboard permit and the lower court’s interpretation of an administrative rule as requiring INDOT to grant the first valid application it receives.

The Supreme Court also ordered INDOT to treat as concurrently filed any billboard permit application it gets from the parties within three business days of the date on which the Clerk certifies this order as final.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. vagueness cannot challenged, so let's write all laws vaguely and throw the constitution out the window.Even if the court is operating under a particular law, if they don't it they will change it to their liking. What a joke!!!

  2. Two convictions becomes one conviction with exactly the same sentence, only it is not clear wheter or not that sentence will be 18 months, 120 months or 138 months. Actually if the guns were in a home, whether or not they were his, he is protected under the 2nd amendment. Jurors need to learn the law and the constitution before judging others. The cour5ts need to do this as well.

  3. With all due respect, Rick, I think you probably would be making a mistake by going to law school. The job market for attorneys is so saturated, you may well find yourself unemployed and with a lot of debt. You mention law would be a good supplement to your skills. True. But employers unfortunately don't value that. You will find that a law degree may well pigeonhole you into an attorney slot and limit career options. If you have a good job now I would hold onto that. As an attorney, you may well end up making less with the aforementioned debt.

  4. Jack, I was only responding to bill's comment of tying everybody in government together. I agree with you though, it takes one bad apple to ruin the bunch.. As in any profession. What's truly unfair is when somebody violates someone's trust and takes complete advantage of someone

  5. John’s comment is unfair. The majority of attorneys can be trusted. Unfortunately, all it takes is one greedy, unscrupulous, immoral attorney to jade the public.

ADVERTISEMENT