ILNews

Justices to hear convictions reversed due to prosecutor’s arguments

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The case of a man whose two convictions of sexual misconduct with a minor were reversed on appeal because of a prosecutor’s overzealous arguments will go to the Indiana Supreme Court.

Justices granted transfer in Bruce Ryan v. State of Indiana, 49S02-1311-CR-734. Ryan was convicted of two Class C felonies, but the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial after finding that the prosecutor’s statements to the jury deprived Ryan of a fair trial.

The case was one of three granted transfer for the week ending Nov. 8. Justices also agreed to hear appeals in two insurance cases. They are:

•    Shannon Robinson and Bryan Robinson v. Erie Insurance Exchange, 49S02-1311-PL-733. In a matter involving a hit-and-run vehicle collision, a trial court granted summary judgment to the insurer. The Court of Appeals reversed and ordered judgment in favor of the plaintiffs under an uninsured driver provision, and;

•    First American Title Insurance Company v. Stephen W. Robertson, Insurance Commissioner of the State of Indiana, in his official capacity, on behalf of the Indiana Department of Insurance, 49S04-1311-PL-732. A trial court denied First American’s verified petition for judicial review and declaratory relief from state agency action, but the Court of Appeals reversed, holding the insurance commissioner missed a statutory deadline, among other things.

The Supreme Court denied transfer in 22 cases.




 

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT