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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT