Alfred J. Pivarnik

Kevin Lee Hough was charged with the knowing or intentional murders of two men in Allen County, Indiana; a jury convicted him on both counts and recommended the death penalty, which the trial court imposed after finding that aggravating factors outweighed any mitigating circumstances. On direct appeal, Hough raised six issues, including the introduction of victim-family statements and letters at sentencing, denial of expert assistance, chain-of-custody problems with evidence, inclusion of a robbery allegation in the death-penalty application, use of statutory aggravators, and allegedly erroneous jury instructions. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and death sentence, holding that any unpreserved claims did not rise to fundamental error, that the evidence was properly admitted, and that the sentencing process complied with constitutional requirements; on rehearing the court corrected only the premature setting of an execution date under Criminal Rule 24(G). The core reasoning rested on waiver doctrines, harmless-error analysis, and deference to the trial court's weighing of aggravators and mitigators.

criminal lawprocedure

In Peck v. State, appellant Bobby Luis Peck was convicted of murder after shooting victim Wayne Mack during an early-morning encounter in South Bend and appealed on grounds that the trial court improperly consolidated his trial with his brother's, allowed certain witness testimony about fear and distances, and required closing arguments and jury deliberations after 9 p.m. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, holding that consolidation was within the trial court's discretion absent a showing of actual prejudice from shared peremptory challenges or other evidence, that evidentiary rulings did not constitute reversible error, and that the late-hour proceedings reflected no abuse of discretion or compromise verdict given the evidence supporting Peck's guilt. The court further noted that the jury's acquittal of the co-defendant on an assisting-a-criminal charge did not undermine the murder conviction, as Indiana juries determine both law and facts.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved a class of Gary, Indiana citizens who sued the city, its mayor, police officials, and the state police superintendent after the city stopped providing state handgun permit application forms starting in 1980, allegedly violating their rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and the Indiana Firearms Act. A jury found in favor of the plaintiffs against the city and local officials, awarding damages and leading to a permanent injunction and attorney fees; the state superintendent was exonerated. The Court of Appeals reversed on procedural grounds, holding that the plaintiffs failed to comply with the Indiana Tort Claims Act's requirement to wait for claim denial before suing. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the appeals court decision, ruling that the Tort Claims Act's notice and exhaustion rules do not apply to federal § 1983 claims under U.S. Supreme Court precedent in Felder v. Casey. The court also addressed attorney fee calculations but remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

civil rightsgunsprocedurefederal power

The case involved Jessie Ray Brewer, who was convicted of two counts of child molesting (one Class C felony and one Class B felony) based on multiple incidents with a ten-year-old victim and his own daughter in the victim's grandmother's home. Brewer appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of uncharged acts under the depraved sexual instinct rule, and the length of his concurrent sentences totaling twenty years. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, finding the children's testimony competent and not incredibly dubious, the uncharged acts properly admitted, and the sentence justified by the defendant's position of trust and repeated conduct. A concurring and dissenting opinion argued for remand due to insufficient consideration of mitigating factors in imposing the maximum sentence.

criminal law

This case involved Michael White, who pleaded guilty to battery and received a suspended sentence conditioned on completing ten days of alternative service, paying fines and restitution, and complying with supervised probation for six months. After a probation officer petitioned for revocation due to multiple failures including non-completion of the service, the trial court revoked probation before the term expired, citing the missed alternative service. The Court of Appeals reversed, finding error because no completion deadline had been specified. The Indiana Supreme Court vacated that decision and affirmed the trial court, reasoning that probation serves as a rehabilitative tool allowing judicial oversight during the term, and that courts lose jurisdiction to enforce conditions once probation expires.

criminal lawprocedure

The case concerned a divorced husband's petition to modify maintenance payments under a dissolution decree incorporating a separation agreement, based on the wife's cohabitation with another man, and to reclassify his military retirement pay as modifiable maintenance rather than property. The trial court terminated maintenance due to the wife's subsequent remarriage but denied modification of the retirement payments, finding no substantial change warranting alteration of the original orders. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the agreement's provisions in paragraph 3 addressed modifiable maintenance while paragraph 4 created a final, non-modifiable property division of retirement benefits, which courts cannot revise regardless of later circumstances.

family lawproperty