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. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  2. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  3. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT