ILNews

The IBA's Criminal Justice and Appellate Sections File Amicus Brief on Sentencing Issue

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

By James Bell and Casey Kannenberg, Bingham McHale
 

Bell James Bell

Sentencing hearings occur in the vast majority of Indiana’s criminal cases. For years, the tools trial judges have used to determine a reasonable sentence have included testimony, character letters, the defendant’s background and Indiana’s sentencing statutes. Recently, Indiana’s trial courts have begun utilizing “scoring models” to help determine a reasonable sentence. The practice of using such “scoring models” was recently challenged by a criminal defendant and his case reached the Supreme Court of Indiana.
 

Kannenberg Casey Kannenberg

Specifically, in Malenchik v. State of Indiana, No. 79S02-0908-CR-364 (Ind. 2010), the trial court, at sentencing, considered the results of a Level of Service Inventory-Revised (“LSI-R”) Report and the results of the defendant’s Substance Abuse Subtle Screening Inventory (“SASSI”). The defendant’s score on the LSI-R placed him in the “High Risk/Needs” category and the SASSI indicated that the defendant has a “high probability” of having a substance dependency. During the sentencing hearing, the judge referenced both the LSI-R and SASSI results, noting that “[Y]our LSIR score is high. Your SASSI score is high with a high probability of substance dependence disorder.” Id. at 3. After considering the Reports and other factors, the trial court ultimately sentenced the defendant to six years imprisonment, with two years suspended. Malenchik, No. 79S02-0908-CR-364, at 3, 4.

On appeal, the defendant challenged the trial court’s use of these scoring models. The State, on the other hand, argued that the Reports may be used in criminal sentencing “if employed consistently with [their] proper purposes and limitations.” Id. Eventually, these arguments reached the Supreme Court of Indiana.

However, prior to ruling on the issue, Chief Justice Shepard requested amicus briefs to aid the Court in reaching a conclusion. With the approval of the IBA Board of Directors, the IBA’s Criminal Justice and Appellate Sections drafted and filed an amicus curiae brief. Prior to the filing of the brief, members of these sections polled judges and criminal practitioners to determine the IBA’s position. Regardless of the position taken by the IBA, the views of all members were contained in the amicus brief and presented to the Court.

The Supreme Court of Indiana eventually arrived at a balanced result that upheld the use of “scoring models,” but limited their use. Specifically, the Court held that “legitimate offender assessment instruments do not replace but may inform a trial court’s sentencing determinations.” Malenchik, No. 79S02-0908-CR-364, at 2. The Court also concluded that “[t]hese evaluations and their scores are not intended to serve as aggravating or mitigating circumstances nor to determine the gross length of sentence, but a trial court may employ such results in formulating the manner in which a sentence is to be served.” Id. at 14.

The Criminal Justice and Appellate Sections would like to thank the judges and lawyers who shared their views and aided in the drafting of this amicus brief. In addition, both sections would like to give a special thanks to Professor Joel Schumm of the Indiana University School of Law-Indianapolis for taking his personal time to draft the amicus brief and for allowing the voices of the IBA’s members to be heard.

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. So that none are misinformed by my posting wihtout a non de plume here, please allow me to state that I am NOT an Indiana licensed attorney, although I am an Indiana resident approved to practice law and represent clients in Indiana's fed court of Nth Dist and before the 7th circuit. I remain licensed in KS, since 1996, no discipline. This must be clarified since the IN court records will reveal that I did sit for and pass the Indiana bar last February. Yet be not confused by the fact that I was so allowed to be tested .... I am not, to be clear in the service of my duty to be absolutely candid about this, I AM NOT a member of the Indiana bar, and might never be so licensed given my unrepented from errors of thought documented in this opinion, at fn2, which likely supports Mr Smith's initial post in this thread: http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1592921.html

  2. When I served the State of Kansas as Deputy AG over Consumer Protection & Antitrust for four years, supervising 20 special agents and assistant attorneys general (back before the IBLE denied me the right to practice law in Indiana for not having the right stuff and pretty much crushed my legal career) we had a saying around the office: Resist the lure of the ring!!! It was a take off on Tolkiem, the idea that absolute power (I signed investigative subpoenas as a judge would in many other contexts, no need to show probable cause)could corrupt absolutely. We feared that we would overreach constitutional limits if not reminded, over and over, to be mindful to not do so. Our approach in so challenging one another was Madisonian, as the following quotes from the Father of our Constitution reveal: The essence of Government is power; and power, lodged as it must be in human hands, will ever be liable to abuse. We are right to take alarm at the first experiment upon our liberties. I believe there are more instances of the abridgement of freedom of the people by gradual and silent encroachments by those in power than by violent and sudden usurpations. Liberty may be endangered by the abuse of liberty, but also by the abuse of power. All men having power ought to be mistrusted. -- James Madison, Federalist Papers and other sources: http://www.constitution.org/jm/jm_quotes.htm RESIST THE LURE OF THE RING ALL YE WITH POLITICAL OR JUDICIAL POWER!

  3. My dear Mr Smith, I respect your opinions and much enjoy your posts here. We do differ on our view of the benefits and viability of the American Experiment in Ordered Liberty. While I do agree that it could be better, and that your points in criticism are well taken, Utopia does indeed mean nowhere. I think Madison, Jefferson, Adams and company got it about as good as it gets in a fallen post-Enlightenment social order. That said, a constitution only protects the citizens if it is followed. We currently have a bevy of public officials and judicial agents who believe that their subjectivism, their personal ideology, their elitist fears and concerns and cause celebs trump the constitutions of our forefathers. This is most troubling. More to follow in the next post on that subject.

  4. Yep I am not Bryan Brown. Bryan you appear to be a bigger believer in the Constitution than I am. Were I still a big believer then I might be using my real name like you. Personally, I am no longer a fan of secularism. I favor the confessional state. In religious mattes, it seems to me that social diversity is chaos and conflict, while uniformity is order and peace.... secularism has been imposed by America on other nations now by force and that has not exactly worked out very well.... I think the American historical experiment with disestablishmentarianism is withering on the vine before our eyes..... Since I do not know if that is OK for an officially licensed lawyer to say, I keep the nom de plume.

  5. I am compelled to announce that I am not posting under any Smith monikers here. That said, the post below does have a certain ring to it that sounds familiar to me: http://www.catholicnewworld.com/cnwonline/2014/0907/cardinal.aspx

ADVERTISEMENT