ILNews

Justices uphold order criminal defendant answer civil complaint

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court Wednesday found a Lake Superior judge did not abuse her discretion in ordering a man criminally charged for the hit-and-run death of a woman to respond to her estate’s wrongful death complaint filed against him.

Britney Meux was jogging with co-workers when she was hit by a car on March 6, 2012. The driver, allegedly Jason R. Cozmanoff, fled the scene. Meux died from her injuries and Cozmanoff was charged with one count of Class C felony reckless homicide and other charges. A few weeks later, Meux’s estate sued him for wrongful death. The discovery process began April 27 in the civil suit.

Coxmanoff moved to stay the entire civil proceeding until his criminal case concluded. He was concerned that if he asserted the Fifth Amendment it would be used against him before the civil jury; if he were to respond to discovery, that information could be used against him during his criminal trial.

The estate countered that the criminal proceeding could drag on beyond the two-year statute of limitations for identifying other potential tortfeasors who must be joined to the suit.

Lake Superior Judge Diane Kavadias Schneider granted a limited stay of discovery regarding only Cozmanoff and ordered him to answer the complaint within 30 days.

In Joseph D. Hardiman and Jaketa L. Patterson, as Co-Administrators of the Estate of Britney R. Meux, Deceased v. Jason R. Cozmanoff, 45S03-1309-CT-619, the justices affirmed Schneider’s decision, noting that their ruling doesn’t mean the trial court was constitutionally required to impose the stay, but that it did not abuse its discretion by doing so.

They found the civil court was appropriately protecting its own calendar and judicial resources by ordering the case to continue. And, Justice Mark Massa pointed out that the estate would have at least 45 days to join any nonparty as a defendant because Indiana law requires Cozmanoff plead any nonparty defense at least 45 days before the statute of limitations expires.

“Non-parties do have an interest in being promptly discovered and joined in the action, but that interest can still be served under this limited stay. Although the Estate may not be able to learn the identity of those nonparties by deposing Cozmanoff, it is still free to do so by conducting other discovery, or by investigating outside the context of formal discovery. Thus, the stay does not entirely prevent the Estate from pursuing its case,” Massa wrote.

The fact that both cases concern identical issues weighs strongly in favor of this limited stay, as the cases turn on the same three issues: whether Cozmanoff hit Meux with his car, whether he was reckless when he did so, and whether his action caused her death.

The justices also found Kavadias Schneider’s decision to stay discovery against Cozmanoff but still require him to file an answer is not unprecedented.

The case is remanded for further proceedings.  

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. Hail to our Constitutional Law Expert in the Executive Office! “What you’re not paying attention to is the fact that I just took an action to change the law,” Obama said.

  2. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  3. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  4. 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.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT