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. Falk said “At this point, at this minute, we’ll savor this particular victory.” “It certainly is a historic week on this front,” Cockrum said. “What a delight ... “Happy Independence Day to the women of the state of Indiana,” WOW. So we broke with England for the right to "off" our preborn progeny at will, and allow the processing plant doing the dirty deeds (dirt cheap) to profit on the marketing of those "products of conception." I was completely maleducated on our nation's founding, it would seem. (But I know the ACLU is hard at work to remedy that, too.)

  2. congratulations on such balanced journalism; I also love how fetus disposal affects women's health protection, as covered by Roe...

  3. It truly sickens me every time a case is compared to mine. The Indiana Supreme Court upheld my convictions based on a finding of “hidden threats.” The term “hidden threat” never appeared until the opinion in Brewington so I had no way of knowing I was on trial for making hidden threats because Dearborn County Prosecutor F Aaron Negangard argued the First Amendment didn't protect lies. Negangard convened a grand jury to investigate me for making “over the top” and “unsubstantiated” statements about court officials, not hidden threats of violence. My indictments and convictions were so vague, the Indiana Court of Appeals made no mention of hidden threats when they upheld my convictions. Despite my public defender’s closing arguments stating he was unsure of exactly what conduct the prosecution deemed to be unlawful, Rush found that my lawyer’s trial strategy waived my right to the fundamental error of being tried for criminal defamation because my lawyer employed a strategy that attempted to take advantage of Negangard's unconstitutional criminal defamation prosecution against me. Rush’s opinion stated the prosecution argued two grounds for conviction one constitutional and one not, however the constitutional true threat “argument” consistently of only a blanket reading of subsection 1 of the intimidation statute during closing arguments, making it impossible to build any kind of defense. Of course intent was impossible for my attorney to argue because my attorney, Rush County Chief Public Defender Bryan Barrett refused to meet with me prior to trial. The record is littered with examples of where I made my concerns known to the trial judge that I didn’t know the charges against me, I did not have access to evidence, all while my public defender refused to meet with me. Special Judge Brian Hill, from Rush Superior Court, refused to address the issue with my public defender and marched me to trial without access to evidence or an understanding of the indictments against me. Just recently the Indiana Public Access Counselor found that four over four years Judge Hill has erroneously denied access to the grand jury audio from my case, the most likely reason being the transcription of the grand jury proceedings omitted portions of the official audio record. The bottom line is any intimidation case involves an action or statement that is debatably a threat of physical violence. There were no such statements in my case. The Indiana Supreme Court took partial statements I made over a period of 41 months and literally connected them with dots… to give the appearance that the statements were made within the same timeframe and then claimed a person similarly situated would find the statements intimidating while intentionally leaving out surrounding contextual factors. Even holding the similarly situated test was to be used in my case, the prosecution argued that the only intent of my public writings was to subject the “victims” to ridicule and hatred so a similarly situated jury instruction wouldn't even have applied in my case. Chief Justice Rush wrote the opinion while Rush continued to sit on a committee with one of the alleged victims in my trial and one of the judges in my divorce, just as she'd done for the previous 7+ years. All of this information, including the recent PAC opinion against the Dearborn Superior Court II can be found on my blog www.danbrewington.blogspot.com.

  4. On a related note, I offered the ICLU my cases against the BLE repeatedly, and sought their amici aid repeatedly as well. Crickets. Usually not even a response. I am guessing they do not do allegations of anti-Christian bias? No matter how glaring? I have posted on other links the amicus brief that did get filed (search this ezine, e.g., Kansas attorney), read the Thomas More Society brief to note what the ACLU ran from like vampires from garlic. An Examiner pledged to advance diversity and inclusion came right out on the record and demanded that I choose Man's law or God's law. I wonder, had I been asked to swear off Allah ... what result then, ICLU? Had I been found of bad character and fitness for advocating sexual deviance, what result then ICLU? Had I been lifetime banned for posting left of center statements denigrating the US Constitution, what result ICLU? Hey, we all know don't we? Rather Biased.

  5. It was mentioned in the article that there have been numerous CLE events to train attorneys on e-filing. I would like someone to provide a list of those events, because I have not seen any such events in east central Indiana, and since Hamilton County is one of the counties where e-filing is mandatory, one would expect some instruction in this area. Come on, people, give some instruction, not just applause!

ADVERTISEMENT