Justia Civil Rights Opinion Summaries

Jimmie Jones was charged with murder. At trial, Jones tendered instructions on reckless homicide and involuntary manslaughter as lesser included offenses to the murder charge. The trial court refused Jones's instructions, finding that those lesser included offenses were not supported by the evidence. A jury later found Jones guilty of murder. On appeal, Jones disputed that his tendered instructions were not supported by the evidence. The court of appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted transfer and affirmed the judgment of the trial court after adopting the opinion of the court of appeals, which concluded that the trial court had not abused its discretion by finding no serious evidentiary dispute.

A jury found Jesse Harris guilty of murder and two counts of attempted murder. The trial court sentenced Harris to a total of 165 years incarceration. The court of appeals affirmed. Harris appealed, contending that the State engaged in forum shopping. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thus vacating the court of appeals, to clarify that a defendant claiming a violation of a local felony case assignment rule need not establish prejudice to prevail on appeal. The Court affirmed Harris's conviction, holding (1) the trial court correctly interpreted the rule, and (2) no violation of the rule occurred in this case.

The Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging T.N. was a child in need of services (CHINS) and requested that T.N. be removed from Father's care. Father objected to removal. A fact-finding hearing was subsequently held, at which time Mother notified the tribal court that she was prepared to make an admission to the CHINS allegations. Father objected. The tribal court told Father he could offer his objections at a contested dispositional hearing. The trial court then found T.N. to be a CHINS. Father appealed. The court of appeals reversed, finding the trial court violated Father's due process rights. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that for the reasons explained in In re K.D., also decided on this day, the trial court erred in not conducting a fact-finding hearing that was requested by Father, and thus, the court violated Father's due process rights.

Mother and Stepfather lived with Mother's two children. The Department of Child Services (DCS) filed a petition alleging that K.D. and K.S. were children in need of services (CHINS). Mother admitted the children were CHINS, but Stepfather denied the allegations. After Stepfather requested a fact-finding hearing, the trial court converted the contested fact-finding hearing scheduled for Stepfather into a contested dispositional hearing. After the dispositional hearing, the juvenile court found the children were in need of services. The court of appeals reversed, finding that Stepfather was denied due process by not receiving a fact-finding hearing. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thereby vacating the court of appeals, and held that a parent who requests a contested fact-finding hearing has a due process right to that hearing, and whenever a trial court is confronted with one parent wishing to make an admission that a child is in need of services and the other parent wishing to deny the same, the trial court shall conduct a fact-finding hearing as to the entire matter. Remanded.

A jury found Keith Hoglund guilty of two counts of child molesting. The court of appeals affirmed. Hoglund appealed, contending the testimony of expert witnesses constituted impermissible vouching evidence. The Supreme Court granted transfer, thereby vacating the court of appeals. The Court then affirmed the judgment of the trial court, holding (1) testimony amounting to the equivalent that a witness believes the child in a case involving child sex abuse allegations is telling the truth is inconsistent with the rules of evidence; (2) the trial court erred in allowing expert testimony that commented on the child witness' truthfulness into evidence over Hoglund's objection; but (3) because Hoglund's conviction was supported by substantial independent evidence of his guilt, and because the improper admission of the evidence was cumulative of other evidence properly before the jury, the error in admitting the testimony was harmless.

After a jury trial, Jerrme Cartwright was convicted of attempted battery and unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon. A divided court of appeals reversed and remanded for a new trial, holding that the trial court improperly denied Cartwright's Batson challenge to the State's peremptory strike of the sole African American prospective juror, as the State's proffered explanations for its peremptory strike were pretextual, resulting in purposeful discrimination in the selection of the jury in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and affirmed the trial court with respect to Cartwright's Batson claim, holding that Cartwright did not meet his burden of demonstrating that the State had pretextual reasons for striking the prospective juror.

After a two-day jury trial, the trial court found Joey Addison guilty of murder but mentally ill and imposed the minimum sentence for murder. Addison appealed, arguing that the circuit court erred in denying his Batson challenge to the State's peremptory strike of an African American prospective juror. The court of appeals rejected Addison's Batson claim. The Supreme Court vacated the court of appeals and reversed the judgment of the trial court with respect to Addison's Batson claim, holding that the State's proffered explanation for striking the venireperson was a mere pretext based on race, making a fair trial impossible. Remanded for a new trial.

After a jury trial, Antwon Abbott was convicted of possession of cocaine as a Class B felony for which he was sentenced to the maximum term of twenty years. The Supreme Court granted transfer and revised Abbott's sentence to twelve years, two years above the statutory advisory term for a Class B felony. Although Abbott's character did not necessarily justify a revision of his sentence, the Court held that the nature of Abbott's offense in this case rendered his twenty-year maximum sentence inappropriate. Remanded to the trial court with instructions to issue an amended sentencing order consistent with this opinion.

For his failure to pay child support for his two daughters, a jury found Defendant guilty of two counts of nonsupport of a dependent child, each a class D felony, plus two additional counts of nonsupport of a dependent child while owing over $15,000 in child support, each a class C felony. The trial court entered judgment only as to the two class C felonies. Defendant appealed, contending that the two class C felonies should have merged into one conviction under Indiana double jeopardy jurisprudence. The court of appeals vacated one of Defendant's class C felony convictions but affirmed the trial court in all other respects. The Supreme Court granted transfer and held that applicable law permitted a separate Class D felony conviction for nonsupport of each dependent child, but only one such offense could be enhanced to a class C felony where the unpaid support for one or more of such children is $15,000 or more. Remanded for the entry of judgment as follows: one class C felony as to the nonsupport applicable to one of the dependent children and one class D felony as to the nonsupport of the other dependent child.

Defendant was convicted of murder, rape, and criminal deviate conduct. The court of appeals affirmed. Defendant next sought post-conviction relief, asserting that his appellate counsel's failure to challenge the refusal of a tendered instruction constituted ineffective assistance of counsel. The post-conviction court denied relief. The court of appeals affirmed. At issue on appeal was whether the instruction on proof beyond a reasonable doubt rendered harmless any potential error in refusing the tendered instruction that "where proof of guilt is by circumstantial evidence only, it must be so conclusive...as to exclude every reasonable theory of innocence." The Supreme Court rejected Defendant's claim of post-conviction court error but granted transfer to provide clarification regarding the "reasonable theory of innocence" instruction, as the Court disagreed with the court of appeals that the giving of a conventional reasonable doubt instruction rendered unnecessary the giving of a reasonable theory of innocence instruction.