ILNews

Supreme Court takes 4 cases

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to four cases Sept. 17, including one involving translated transcripts presented to a jury in a drug case.

The Indiana Court of Appeals found in Noe Romo v. State of Indiana, No. 49S04-1009-CR-499, a third example of when transcripts “may” be necessary – when an audio recording isn’t the best evidence of a conversation because it features a language that a jury can’t understand.

Romo had challenged the admission of English transcripts of drug transactions he participated in with a confidential informant in Spanish. The appellate court found the state laid the proper foundation to establish the accuracy of the transcripts and that Romo wasn’t prejudiced by their admission.

The justices also granted transfer to Jeffrey L. Sloan v. State of Indiana, No. 18S04-1009-CR-502, in which the Court of Appeals decided that the statute of limitations on felony child molesting begins once the actions stop and the victim is no longer prevented from telling authorities. The issue had been litigated for more than 20 years and produced conflicting opinions on the matter. Because the judges found the statute of limitations had expired, preventing the state from filing charges because the victim – who said the molestation began in 1984 – didn’t report the abuse until 2007, long after the molestation had stopped.

The high court also took:

- Elmer D. Baker v. State of Indiana, No. 17S04-1009-CR-500, in which the lower appellate court affirmed Elmer Baker’s felony child molesting convictions. The Court of Appeals held the trial court didn’t violate Baker’s constitutional protection against ex post facto laws in granting the state’s motion to amend the charging information, the trial court didn’t commit fundamental error by giving certain jury instructions, nor did it abuse its discretion in denying his motion to correct error on the issue of unanimity of the jury verdict. They also held he wasn’t denied effective assistance of counsel. The Court of Appeals affirmed their original opinion on rehearing.

- Clifton Mauricio v. State of Indiana, No. 02S03-1009-PC-501, in which the Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of Clifton Mauricio’s petition for post-conviction relief in a not-for-publication opinion. They found he didn’t show he was prejudiced by the counsel’s alleged errors or that his sentence would have been different on remand.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Please I need help with my class action lawsuits, im currently in pro-se and im having hard time findiNG A LAWYER TO ASSIST ME

  2. Access to the court (judiciary branch of government) is the REAL problem, NOT necessarily lack of access to an attorney. Unfortunately, I've lived in a legal and financial hell for the past six years due to a divorce (where I was, supposedly, represented by an attorney) in which I was defrauded of settlement and the other party (and helpers) enriched through the fraud. When I attempted to introduce evidence and testify (pro se) in a foreclosure/eviction, I was silenced (apparently on procedural grounds, as research I've done since indicates). I was thrown out of a residence which was to be sold, by a judge who refused to allow me to speak in (the supposedly "informal") small claims court where the eviction proceeding (by ex-brother-in-law) was held. Six years and I can't even get back on solid or stable ground ... having bank account seized twice, unlawfully ... and now, for the past year, being dragged into court - again, contrary to law and appellate decisions - by former attorney, who is trying to force payment from exempt funds. Friday will mark fifth appearance. Hopefully, I'll be allowed to speak. The situation I find myself in shouldn't even be possible, much less dragging out with no end in sight, for years. I've done nothing wrong, but am watching a lot of wrong being accomplished under court jurisdiction; only because I was married to someone who wanted and was granted a divorce (but was not willing to assume the responsibilities that come with granting the divorce). In fact, the recalcitrant party was enriched by well over $100k, although it was necessarily split with other actors. Pro bono help? It's a nice dream ... but that's all it is, for too many. Meanwhile, injustice marches on.

  3. Both sites mentioned in the article appear to be nonfunctional to date (March 28, 2017). http://indianalegalanswers.org/ returns a message stating the "server is taking too long to respond" and http://www.abafreelegalasnswers.org/ "can't find the server". Although this does not surprise me, it is disheartening to know that access to the judicial branch of government remains out of reach for too many citizens (for procedural rather than meritorious reasons) of Indiana. Any updates regarding this story?

  4. I've been denied I appeal court date took a year my court date was Nov 9,2016 and have not received a answer yet

  5. Warsaw indiana dcs lying on our case. We already proved that in our first and most recent court appearance i need people to contact me who have evidence of dcs malpractice please email or facebook nathaniel hollett thank you

ADVERTISEMENT