Justices take 4 cases on transfer

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to four cases last week, including a case that divided the Indiana Court of Appeals over whether a drunken driving retrial was double jeopardy.

In Jeffrey A. Cleary v. State of Indiana, 45S03-1404-CR-295, a split Court of Appeals panel upheld Jeffrey Cleary’s Class B felony conviction for driving while intoxicated and his 14-year sentence handed down after a second trial. In the first trial, Cleary was convicted of misdemeanor driving while intoxicated charges but the jury deadlocked on the felony OWI causing death count. Cleary moved for a directed verdict, the trial judge ordered a new trial.

On appeal, Cleary argued that the retrial violated his double-jeopardy protections, that a blood draw used to establish his blood-alcohol content was improper and shouldn’t have been admitted, and that his sentence was inappropriate.

The majority held that had judgment been entered on the lesser convictions after Cleary’s first trial, he would be barred from being retried. But judgment wasn’t entered. Judge Terry Crone dissented, writing the court should have entered judgment after the first trial.

In Ruben Rosales v. State of Indiana, 48S02-1404-CR-297, the Court of Appeals was divided on whether jury instruction was a harmless error or gave the jurors another base for finding Ruben Rosales guilty of attempted murder. At trial, the jury was instructed on the requirements for attempted murder as well as accomplice liability.

Crone dissented in this case, arguing the jury instruction was a fundamental error because only the final instructions to the jury mention accomplice liability, giving the jurors two distinct avenues for finding Rosales guilty.

In Old National Bancorp d/b/a Old National Trust Company, as Trustee of the Percy E. Goodrich Trust and the Hanover College Trust v. Hanover College, 68S05-1404-TR-296, the Court of Appeals dismissed Old National Bancorp’s appeal of the termination for two trusts for which it served as representative. The judges held the bank’s representative capacity was terminated once the trusts were terminated.

The justices also took Edward Lee Matthys v. State of Indiana (NFP), in which the appeals court affirmed the termination from a county re-entry court program and Matthys’ placement in the Department of Correction.

The justices declined transfer for 18 cases, including Rick Deeter v. Indiana Farmers Mutual Insurance Co., in which Rick Deeter sought to recover insurance proceeds after his wife intentionally burned down their home.



Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit