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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit