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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT