Indiana Supreme Court grants transfer to 4 cases

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to four cases last week, including a decision that divided the Court of Appeals as to whether to provide a defendant a video copy of his controlled drug buy.

In Marvin Beville v. State of Indiana, 84S01-1606-CR-347, Marvin Beville appealed the denial of the trial court to provide him a copy of the video recording of his alleged controlled drug transaction. A divided Court of Appeals affirmed the decision with Judge Elaine Brown dissenting, noting “Under the circumstances, I cannot say that there is a paramount interest in non-disclosure of the CI’s identity and that a failure to disclose will not infringe the Constitutional rights of the accused.” http://www.in.gov/judiciary/opinions/pdf/03291601pdm.pdf

In KS&E Sports, et al. v. Dwayne H. Runnels, 49S02-1606-CT-349, the COA ruled in a split decision that an Indianapolis Metropolitan Police Department officer who was shot and wounded by a suspect he killed while returning fire may proceed with his lawsuit against a gun dealer that sold the gun to a straw purchaser. The three judges in the case, Patricia Riley, Elaine Brown and Robert Altice, wrote three separate opinions, with Riley and Brown forming the majority. Altice in his dissent said the case is a matter of statutory interpretation that required reversing the trial court.

The court also granted transfer in two memorandum decisions, State of Indiana v. David Brown, 49S05-1606-CR-348, and Termination: R.S. v. Indiana Department of Child Services, 49S04-1606-JT-350. In Brown, the COA dismissed and remanded the state’s appeal of the trial court’s ruling that sustained David Brown’s objection to state evidence. Because the case was still pending in trial court, the COA ruled the state had no statutory authority to appeal. In R.S., a father argued DCS did not prove termination was in the child’s best interests and did not have a satisfactory plan for care of child following termination but the COA affirmed termination of his parental rights.

The justices denied transfer to 19 other cases for the week ending June 24.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}