Dixon W. Prentice

In Fointno v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of class A felony rape, three counts of class A felony criminal deviate conduct, two counts of class B felony confinement, one count of class B felony robbery, and one count of class D felony intimidation, and was sentenced to consecutive terms totaling 104 years. On direct appeal, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed challenges to the admission of expert testimony based on a negligently destroyed rape kit, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the reasonableness of the sentence. The court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error on the evidentiary issue because the defendant failed to properly preserve and demonstrate his objections at trial, and holding that the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdicts. However, the court remanded for modification of the sentence to a total of 80 years, concluding that the additional consecutive terms were manifestly unreasonable under Article I, Section 18 of the Indiana Constitution given the defendant's background and the circumstances of the offenses. The court directed that the sentences for confinement, robbery, and intimidation run concurrently with the 80-year terms for the sexual offenses.

criminal law

This case arose after an Orkin exterminator accidentally shot a homeowner with a homemade firearm while working unsupervised in the customer's basement, leading to a lawsuit against Orkin for compensatory and punitive damages based on negligent hiring and supervision. The trial court awarded punitive damages, which the Court of Appeals affirmed, but the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and reversed that award. The Court held that the evidence of Orkin's hiring practices, limited background checks, and abbreviated training did not meet the clear and convincing standard required to show the obdurate, culpable conduct necessary for punitive damages under precedents such as Travelers Indemnity Co. v. Armstrong. The matter was remanded with instructions to vacate the punitive damages judgment while leaving compensatory damages undisturbed.

torts & liabilitybusiness & regulatory

This case involved a defendant charged with multiple felonies including attempted murder, robbery, confinement, resisting law enforcement, and carrying a handgun without a license after a restaurant robbery in Indianapolis led to a shootout injuring four people. Following a bench trial, the defendant was convicted of class B felony robbery and carrying a handgun without a license (with the confinement conviction vacated at sentencing) and received consecutive sentences totaling 24 years. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions and sentence, ruling that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying a motion for counsel to withdraw because an indigent defendant has no right to counsel of choice and no prejudice resulted from the representation, which included strategic stipulations justified by the evidence. The court also held that the sentence was not manifestly unreasonable, as the trial court properly considered the defendant's prior robbery and handgun convictions plus aggravating factors like the injuries inflicted.

criminal lawprocedure

In Bell v. State, Roy Bell appealed his jury conviction for voluntary manslaughter, a class B felony, after shooting and killing a victim during a dispute at an illegal gambling operation in Fort Wayne, Indiana. Bell challenged the sufficiency of the evidence and claimed he was justified in using deadly force under Indiana's self-defense statute because he reasonably believed the victim posed an imminent threat with a hatchet. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction, concluding that the evidence showed Bell was the initial aggressor who provoked the confrontation by striking others and pursuing the victim, which negated any self-defense justification. The court applied the standard of review favoring evidence supporting the verdict and found that the State met its burden to disprove self-defense beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal law

In Totten v. State, the defendant appealed his jury conviction for attempted rape as a class B felony, challenging the sufficiency of evidence to prove use of force or threat of force and the adequacy of the trial court's findings to support a two-year sentence enhancement above the presumptive term. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the victim's testimony regarding the defendant's possession of a butcher knife, verbal threats to kill her, and her expressed fear provided sufficient evidence of force despite the jury's rejection of the class A felony charge. On sentencing, the court found the trial judge's references to the defendant's prior similar criminal activities (supported by the presentence report) and his courtroom attitude constituted adequate particularized reasons for enhancement under the relevant statutes.

criminal lawprocedure

In Chew v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of class B felony rape and criminal deviate conduct based on evidence that he forced the victim into his car at knifepoint and compelled her to engage in sexual acts. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the criminal deviate conduct conviction, finding sufficient evidence including the victim's testimony describing the acts, but reversed the rape conviction. The court reasoned that the victim's testimony was too vague and uncertain regarding vaginal penetration, a required element of rape under the statute, and that the expert medical evidence of semen traces was inconclusive as to the timing and nature of the act. The court applied its standard of reviewing only evidence favorable to the State but concluded that an inference of penetration would require impermissible speculation beyond a reasonable doubt.

criminal lawprocedure

In Flores v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of burglary and two counts of robbery, all class A felonies, based on an incident in which he invaded a home, attacked the elderly victims with a hammer, and took items from the residence. The Indiana Supreme Court reversed the robbery convictions on the ground that the amended information, which charged only the taking of unspecified "property," was constitutionally insufficient to inform the defendant of the charges against him under Article I, Section 13 of the Indiana Constitution. The court affirmed the burglary conviction, concluding that the evidence was sufficient to sustain it, and upheld the concurrent thirty-five-year sentences as not manifestly unreasonable in light of the nature of the offense and the victims' ages.

criminal lawprocedure

In Smith v. State, the defendant appealed his enhanced sentences after pleading guilty to rape (a class A felony) and criminal confinement (a class B felony), for which the trial court imposed the maximum terms of 50 and 20 years imprisonment to run concurrently. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the trial court's statements at sentencing adequately explained the enhancement by identifying specific aggravating factors supported by the record, including the indiscriminate nature of the crimes, disregard for the safety of the victim and her son, physical injury to the victim, and the defendant's need for correctional treatment best provided in a penal facility. The court further concluded that these findings justified the sentences without relying on improper criteria or failing to consider mitigation, and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in determining that aggravating factors outweighed mitigating ones such as the defendant's age.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted by jury of forgery and found to be a habitual offender, resulting in a 35-year prison sentence. On direct appeal, the defendant claimed fundamental error in admitting his uncounseled admissions to a probation officer during a presentence interview for the habitual offender phase, and error in admitting other forged checks as irrelevant and prejudicial evidence. The court affirmed the convictions, ruling that the lack of a trial objection waived the Miranda claim and that it did not rise to fundamental error given the unchallenged habitual offender status, while the additional checks were properly admitted to show a common scheme or plan.

criminal lawprocedure

In Woodford v. State, the petitioner, who had pleaded guilty to murder in 1976 as an accomplice in a robbery that resulted in a police officer's death, sought post-conviction relief in 1982, arguing that there was no substantial factual basis for his plea to premeditated murder and that he had not been advised of rights waived by the plea. The post-conviction court denied relief on the ground of laches, but the Indiana Supreme Court reversed, holding that prior cases improperly placed the burden on the petitioner to disprove laches and that the State must prove the defense in guilty plea challenges. The Court further determined that the record supported a factual basis for the plea under the state's accomplice liability statute, which allows a participant to be held responsible as a principal. The case was remanded for further proceedings on the petition, including a proper application of the laches defense.

criminal lawprocedure

In Payne v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of one count of robbery as a class C felony and one count of robbery resulting in bodily injury as a class A felony, receiving concurrent sentences of five and thirty years. The Indiana Supreme Court reviewed challenges to the class A felony conviction, including whether the statutory definition of 'bodily injury' was unconstitutionally vague, whether the evidence sufficiently proved bodily injury occurred, and whether the presumptive thirty-year sentence constituted cruel and unusual punishment. The court held that the defendant had waived the vagueness claim by failing to file a timely motion to dismiss but addressed it on the merits and rejected it based on prior precedent defining the term to include physical pain. It further found sufficient evidence that the victim suffered bruising and soreness from being struck, establishing bodily injury, and determined that the sentence was not disproportionate or manifestly unreasonable given the defendant's criminal history and the nature of the offenses involving two victims. The convictions and sentences were affirmed.

criminal law

In Outlaw v. State, the defendant appealed his jury conviction for robbery as a class A felony, arguing that the victim's in-court identification was unreliable due to a suggestive pretrial photo array, that the evidence failed to show the required bodily injury, and that the trial court erred by refusing jury instructions on several lesser-included offenses. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and twenty-year sentence. It held that challenges to the photo array were waived because they were not raised before or during trial, that the array was not unduly suggestive in any event, and that the victim's scrapes, bruises, and arm strain from being dragged on her knees satisfied the bodily-injury element. On the instructions, the court reasoned that the evidence would support only a robbery conviction or no offense at all, so the requested lesser offenses were not warranted.

criminal lawprocedure

This case involved Michael Heaton's appeal of his conviction for rape as a class A felony under Indiana law, based on his claim that the evidence was insufficient because it relied on the victim's uncorroborated testimony about the incident. The court affirmed the conviction, holding that the evidence presented was adequate to support the verdict. The court reviewed only the facts most favorable to the state, which included the victim's account of Heaton forcing her to have intercourse at knifepoint in a grocery store where she worked. The court declined to reweigh conflicting testimony or assess witness credibility, noting that Heaton's denial regarding penetration did not undermine the sufficiency of the victim's statements. It further held that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to sustain a conviction under established precedent.

criminal lawprocedure

In Woodson v. State, the defendant was convicted after a jury trial of attempted murder, rape, criminal deviate conduct, attempted criminal deviate conduct, and habitual offender status, resulting in a total sentence of ninety years. The sole issue on direct appeal concerned whether the trial court's jury instruction on consent for the sexual offense counts misstated Indiana law by potentially allowing conviction without proof of actual resistance. The Indiana Supreme Court held that the instruction, when read as a whole, correctly stated the law, as resistance is not always required if submission is compelled by threats or circumstances, and affirmed the convictions. The court also noted a sentencing error regarding the habitual offender enhancement and remanded for correction to properly enhance an underlying felony sentence rather than impose a separate term.

criminal lawprocedure

In Coff v. State, the defendant appealed his jury convictions for theft as a class D felony and habitual offender status, raising claims about the admission of his confession, ineffective assistance of counsel regarding the late-filed habitual offender charge, admission of a photograph, and sufficiency of the evidence. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, finding no reversible error. The court reasoned that the confession was voluntary based on the waiver form, the detective's testimony about the defendant's lucidity and lack of coercion, and the circumstances of the interview. It further held that counsel was not ineffective for failing to seek a continuance, the photograph was properly admitted, and the evidence sufficiently established the bartender's possession of the money, the unauthorized taking, and the requisite intent under the theft statute.

criminal law

In Williams v. State, the defendant was convicted of burglary after being arrested inside an elderly woman's home following reports of breaking glass, and he appealed his conviction and enhanced 15-year sentence. The court addressed challenges to the admission of evidence regarding another burglary committed the same evening, the refusal of a jury instruction on weighing confessions, the sufficiency of the evidence, and the reasonableness of the sentence. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that evidence of the prior burglary was admissible to establish the defendant's intent to commit theft, that the tendered instruction was properly refused as it was not fully applicable, that the evidence was sufficient, and that the sentence was supported by aggravating factors including the victim's age and the defendant's criminal history.

criminal lawprocedure

In Inman v. State, the defendant was charged with murder and attempted murder after shooting two men during confrontations at a landfill and hospital parking lot, resulting in one death; he was convicted by a jury of voluntary manslaughter and acquitted on the attempted murder charge, then sentenced to an enhanced 20-year term. On direct appeal, he raised two issues: that the trial court erred in denying his motion to correct error based on the state's alleged violation of a discovery order by withholding a witness's failed polygraph test and use of purportedly false testimony, and that the enhanced sentence was manifestly unreasonable. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, holding that the discovery and false-testimony claims were procedurally unavailable because they were not timely raised at trial and that the record did not support knowing use of false evidence by the state; it further found the sentence justified by aggravating circumstances such as the defendant's possession of firearms and actions posing public danger, which outweighed mitigating factors like lack of prior record and self-surrender.

criminal lawprocedure

In Richardson v. State, the defendant was charged with murder, robbery, and habitual offender status; he pled guilty to the robbery and habitual offender counts but was convicted of murder after a jury trial. On appeal, he challenged the admission of rebuttal expert testimony regarding the rifle's functionality, the admission of victim photographs, and the sufficiency of the evidence to support the murder conviction. The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the murder conviction, finding the rebuttal testimony properly contradicted the defendant's accident claim, the photographs were relevant and not unduly prejudicial, and the evidence—including the defendant's flight and failure to seek help—was sufficient to support a knowing or intentional killing. The court also addressed sentencing errors sua sponte, remanding for a statement of reasons for consecutive sentences on the murder and robbery convictions and to correct the separate habitual offender sentence, which must enhance an underlying felony rather than stand alone.

criminal lawprocedure

The case involved a defendant convicted of burglary, a class B felony, after police found him and a companion inside an apartment with a broken door, an open freezer, and a pillowcase containing food items taken from the premises. The court affirmed the conviction, finding no error in the trial court's jury instructions on accomplice liability or in the sufficiency of the evidence. It reasoned that the instructions correctly stated Indiana law allowing a person who aids or causes another to commit an offense to be held liable as a principal, without shifting the burden of proof from the State. The evidence of the defendant's presence, companionship with the codefendant, attempted flight, and the circumstances of the break-in was sufficient for the jury to infer intent and participation in the burglary.

criminal law

The case involved the construction of Newell M. Merrill's will, which created a life estate for his wife (who predeceased him) followed by a residuary trust benefiting his three children and grandchildren, with distributions tied to events such as the youngest grandchild reaching age 25 and potential invasions of corpus for emergencies. The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer, vacated the Court of Appeals decision, and reversed the trial court's order, holding that the testator died intestate. The core reasoning was that the trust provisions violated the common-law Rule Against Perpetuities by potentially creating remote future interests without an alternative disposition or savings clause in the will, requiring the property to pass to the heirs at law under established precedent against judicial rewriting of wills.

propertyfamily law