ILNews

Senate passes civil immunity, sentencing alternatives for young offenders bills

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Senate approved several pieces of legislation from the House this week, including a bill that would establish sentencing alternatives for certain offenders under the age of 18.

Senators passed House Bill 1108 Tuesday 97-0 and returned it to the House with amendments. Among other things, the legislation requires the sentencing court to hold a review hearing concerning an offender when he or she turns 18 and before the offender turns 19. It allows the sentencing court to continue the offender’s placement in a juvenile facility if certain objectives have been met.

Also on Tuesday, the Senate passed HB 1376 addressing various privacy issues; HB 1392 restricting criminal background checks; and HB 1458 on Department of Toxicology fees. Only HB 1458 is ready for enrollment.

The House passed Senate Bill 125 on Tuesday by a vote of 99-0. The legislation establishes the commission on improving the status of children to study issues concerning vulnerable youth and take actions relating to children. The introduced version of the bill was prepared by the Department of Child Services Interim Study Committee. The bill returns to the Senate with amendments.

On Monday, Senators passed HB 1519, which adds agricultural products and livestock to the list of items for which a person can’t be held liable for civil damages if the item is donated in good faith; HB 1159, which limits the liability of a public school or accredited nonpublic school that provides community-use physical fitness activities to the public; and HB 1027 on providing civil immunity to a registered architect, land surveyor or professional engineer who provides without compensation professional services related to a declared emergency.

The Senate also adopted Monday Simple Resolution 44 asking the Legislative Council to assign an interim study committee to look at the feasibility of creating a judicial center in Indiana that would house the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court.

The last day for third reading of House bills in the Senate is April 10, as well as the last day for Senate adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval. April 15 is the last day for third reading of Senate bills in the House and the last day for House adoption of conference committee reports without Rules Committee approval.

The session is scheduled to end April 29.  

 

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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  2. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  3. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  4. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

  5. While this right is guaranteed by our Constitution, it has in recent years been hampered by insurance companies, i.e.; the practice of the plaintiff's own insurance company intervening in an action and filing a lien against any proceeds paid to their insured. In essence, causing an additional financial hurdle for a plaintiff to overcome at trial in terms of overall award. In a very real sense an injured party in exercise of their right to trial by jury may be the only party in a cause that would end up with zero compensation.

ADVERTISEMENT