ILNews

Supreme Court grants transfer in 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court will review reversal of a man’s conviction of possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon due to a police officer’s testimony about the man’s nickname.

A divided appeals panel reversed conviction of the Class B felony and a 12-year prison sentence in Shawn Blount v. State of Indiana, 49A02-1304-CR-365. Blount was charged after a shooting at an Indianapolis motel. 

The majority Court of Appeals opinion by Senior Judge Carr Darden held that it was impermissible hearsay when an officer testified that a mother and son had provided a nickname that led to Blount’s arrest. Judge Margret Robb joined the majority and Judge James Kirsch dissented without opinion.

The Blount case is one of four that the Indiana Supreme Court took up for the week ending May 16.

Another criminal appeal also was added to the justices’ docket. The court will review Scott Logan v. State of Indiana, 20S05-1405-CR-339. In a memorandum decision, the Court of Appeals affirmed Logan’s Class C felony conviction of child molestation from Elkhart Superior Court. Logan claimed at the Court of Appeals that charges should have been dismissed under Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C) and that Logan was denied a speedy trial.
 
Also on the transfer list is State of Indiana v. Tammy Sue Harper, 79S02-1405-CR-334, in which justices last week affirmed a sentence reduction,  finding that a deputy prosecutor’s conduct during a hearing satisfied the statutory requirement that a prosecuting attorney consent to the reduction.

In addition, justices will hear an appeal of trial court and Court of Appeals rulings that shareholders who sued an organization’s board of directors are entitled to full access to an unredacted version of a report produced by a special litigation committee.

That case is TP Orthodontics, Inc., Christopher K. Kesling, DDS, MS, Adam Kesling, and Emily Kesling, Individually and derivatively on behalf of TP Orthodontics, Inc. v. Andrew C. Kesling, individually and as Trustee of the Andrew C. Kesling Trust Dated March 28, 2001, and the Andrew C. Kesling Trust Dated March 28, 2001, 46S03-1405-MI-337.

Indiana Supreme Court transfer disposition summaries may be viewed here.
 

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. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT