ILNews

Justices take 3 cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court accepted transfer of three cases last week, including a case in which the Indiana Court of Appeals lengthened a man’s sentence.

In Jeffrey E. Akard v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-1009-CR-478, the Court of Appeals increased Jeffrey Akard’s sentence for rape and other convictions by 25 years. Akard claimed his sentence for multiple counts of rape, criminal deviate conduct, criminal confinement, and battery was inappropriate and should be revised to run concurrently so he would have a 40-year sentence.

But the judges decided to lengthen his 93-year sentence to 118 years because his is a “most unusual case,” citing Indiana Supreme Court Justice Theodore Boehm's concurring opinion in McCullough v. State, 900 N.E.2d 745, 750 (Ind. 2009). The judges found the trial court sentenced Akard below the statutory minimum on several counts. The appellate court upheld Akard’s increased sentence in a rehearing in June.

In Howard Regional Health System, et al. v. Jacob Gordon, et al., No. 34S02-1009-CV-476, the Court of Appeals held if a hospital or medical provider loses records so that a patient can’t pursue a medical malpractice claim, state law lets that patient pursue a separate civil action for spoliation of evidence. The judges found a private cause of action is established under Indiana Code Section 16-39-7-1 regarding the consequences of violating the state’s medical record retention statute.

Jacob Gordon’s mother, Lisa, filed a medical malpractice suit and asked for evidence from the hospital where Jacob was born. Howard Community Hospital took 18 months to tell her that the information couldn’t be found. The appellate court affirmed partial summary judgment against the hospital for spoliation of evidence.

In Kevin Taylor v. State of Indiana, No. 20S04-1009-PC-477, the Court of Appeals split on the impact of a jury instruction on robbery in Kevin Taylor’s trial. Taylor was convicted of felony murder during a robbery; he filed for post-conviction relief claiming ineffective assistance of trial counsel because his attorney didn’t object to the final instructions, which did not instruct on the elements of robbery.

The judges held Taylor met his burden of showing the post-conviction court erred by ruling his counsel hadn’t performed deficiently, but only Judge Cale Bradford believed Taylor wasn’t prejudiced by his attorney’s performance. The majority remanded for a new trial.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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