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. I gave tempparry guardship to a friend of my granddaughter in 2012. I went to prison. I had custody. My daughter went to prison to. We are out. My daughter gave me custody but can get her back. She was not order to give me custody . but now we want granddaughter back from friend. She's 14 now. What rights do we have

  2. This sure is not what most who value good governance consider the Rule of Law to entail: "In a letter dated March 2, which Brizzi forwarded to IBJ, the commission dismissed the grievance “on grounds that there is not reasonable cause to believe that you are guilty of misconduct.”" Yet two month later reasonable cause does exist? (Or is the commission forging ahead, the need for reasonable belief be damned? -- A seeming violation of the Rules of Profession Ethics on the part of the commission) Could the rule of law theory cause one to believe that an explanation is in order? Could it be that Hoosier attorneys live under Imperial Law (which is also a t-word that rhymes with infamy) in which the Platonic guardians can do no wrong and never owe the plebeian class any explanation for their powerful actions. (Might makes it right?) Could this be a case of politics directing the commission, as celebrated IU Mauer Professor (the late) Patrick Baude warned was happening 20 years ago in his controversial (whisteblowing) ethics lecture on a quite similar topic: http://www.repository.law.indiana.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1498&context=ilj

  3. I have a case presently pending cert review before the SCOTUS that reveals just how Indiana regulates the bar. I have been denied licensure for life for holding the wrong views and questioning the grand inquisitors as to their duties as to state and federal constitutional due process. True story: https://www.scribd.com/doc/299040839/2016Petitionforcert-to-SCOTUS Shorter, Amici brief serving to frame issue as misuse of govt licensure: https://www.scribd.com/doc/312841269/Thomas-More-Society-Amicus-Brown-v-Ind-Bd-of-Law-Examiners

  4. Here's an idea...how about we MORE heavily regulate the law schools to reduce the surplus of graduates, driving starting salaries up for those new grads, so that we can all pay our insane amount of student loans off in a reasonable amount of time and then be able to afford to do pro bono & low-fee work? I've got friends in other industries, radiology for example, and their schools accept a very limited number of students so there will never be a glut of new grads and everyone's pay stays high. For example, my radiologist friend's school accepted just six new students per year.

  5. I totally agree with John Smith.

ADVERTISEMENT