Jon D. Krahulik

In Derado v. State, the defendant was convicted of five counts of dealing in cocaine as an accomplice based on deliveries made by a co-defendant, along with a separate conviction for conspiracy to deal in cocaine where the same deliveries were alleged as overt acts in furtherance of the conspiracy. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the conspiracy conviction on double jeopardy grounds, concluding that the same facts were used to establish both accomplice liability for the dealing offenses and the overt acts supporting the conspiracy. Applying the Blockburger test along with review of the charging documents and jury instructions, the court determined that the offenses were not distinct because each did not require proof of an additional fact independent of the other. The dealing convictions and sentences were affirmed, while the conspiracy conviction and consecutive sentence were vacated.

criminal lawprocedure

In State v. Owings, the defendant faced drug-related felony charges based on testimony from an inmate witness who later died by suicide, raising the question of whether the witness's pretrial deposition could be admitted at trial even though the defendant had not attended the deposition. The Supreme Court of Indiana held that the deposition was admissible. The court reasoned that the defendant waived her confrontation rights under Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution because she received notice of the deposition, was free on bond, and did not request to attend or have the deposition relocated. The court further concluded that the deposition bore sufficient indicia of reliability due to procedural safeguards, including cross-examination by defense counsel.

criminal lawprocedure

In Martin v. State, the defendant was convicted by jury of one count of criminal deviate conduct, one count of attempted child molesting, and two counts of child molesting, receiving consecutive sentences totaling twenty-five years. The appeal centered on whether the trial court erred in admitting evidence of the defendant's prior sexual misconduct, including testimony from his daughter about events twenty years earlier, after the defendant had filed a motion in limine to exclude such evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and held that the defendant's objections were preserved for review because he raised the issue outside the jury's presence and the trial court confirmed the record was preserved. However, the court concluded that any error in admitting the evidence was harmless, as the victims' detailed testimony and corroborating observations provided sufficient basis for the convictions without a substantial likelihood that the prior acts evidence affected the verdict, and therefore affirmed the convictions.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved insured parties suing Erie Insurance for denying their first-party claims under an insurance contract and seeking both compensatory and punitive damages. The court granted transfer to reaffirm that insurers have a legal duty to deal in good faith with their insureds and recognized an independent tort cause of action for breaching that duty. This allowed potential recovery of punitive damages, which are unavailable in pure contract actions. The core reasoning balanced the special fiduciary-like relationship in insurance contracts, the foreseeability of harm from bad-faith claim denials, and public policy favoring fair play between insurers and insureds.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

In Clausen v. State, the defendant was convicted by jury of two counts of child molesting, class B felonies, based on sexual acts committed against his eleven-year-old stepdaughter, and he appealed the trial court's admission of evidence of his prior sexual misconduct with another child as well as the order requiring him to pay for the victim's counseling. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, holding that Clausen waived any appellate claim regarding the prior misconduct evidence because he failed to make a timely, contemporaneous objection when the testimony was offered at trial. The court reasoned that denial of a motion in limine does not preserve error for appeal and that a post-trial motion to insert an objection into the record does not substitute for an objection at the time the evidence is presented, consistent with longstanding precedent requiring such objections to allow the trial court an opportunity to rule and to create a proper record.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved multiple plaintiffs injured when an Indianapolis police officer drove through a red light without activating emergency signals while responding to a domestic disturbance call, leading to a collision. The plaintiffs sued the officer and the City of Indianapolis for negligence, but the trial court and Court of Appeals granted summary judgment based on immunity under the Indiana Tort Claims Act. The Supreme Court of Indiana granted transfer, holding that a police officer traveling to the scene of a crime is not immune from civil liability for negligent driving. The court interpreted Ind. Code § 34-4-16.5-3(7) to limit "law enforcement immunity" to activities directly attendant to effecting an arrest, rejecting broader prior interpretations from cases like Seymour Nat'l Bank v. State and the dicta in Tittle v. Mahan.

torts & liability