« Indiana Decisions - 7th Circuit issues two | Main | Indiana Government - More on latest Daniels' appointments »

Wednesday, December 22, 2004

Indiana Decisions - One Supreme Court, Two Court of Appeals opinions today

Sandy Diane Pugh v. State of Indiana (12/21/04 IndSCt) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Sullivan, Justice

The Court of Appeals held that the trial court lacked authority to order less than the entire amount of the sentence originally suspended when it revoked Defendant Sandy Diane Pugh’s probation. Following our opinion in Stephens v. State, we hold that when a trial court revokes a defendant’s probation, it may order less than the entire amount of the sentence originally suspended. * * *
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Note: Read ILB summary of Travis L. Stephens v. State of Indiana (12/10/04 IndSCt) here.

Dutchmen Manufacturing Inc. v. Reynolds, Chad, et al. (12/22/04 IndCtApp)
Baker, Judge

Appellant-defendant Dutchmen Manufacturing, Inc. (Dutchmen) appeals the trial court’s denial of its motion for summary judgment against appellees-plaintiffs Chad Reynolds (Reynolds) and Don Reynolds. Specifically, Dutchmen raises three issues, one of which we find dispositive: whether the scaffolding at issue was a chattel for purposes of Section 388 of the Restatement (Second) of Torts. Finding that the scaffolding had merged into the real estate, we reverse and remand to the trial court with instructions that judgment be entered in favor of Dutchmen. * * *

Because the scaffolding ceased to be personal property on February 28, 1999, Dutchmen could not have supplied a chattel as required by Section 388. Therefore, this element of Reynolds’s claim is negated, and the trial court erred in denying summary judgment on this issue.

The judgment of the trial court is reversed and remanded with orders that judgment be entered in favor of Dutchmen.
SHARPNACK, J., and FRIEDLANDER, J., concur.

Jeffrey Williams v. State of Indiana (10/13/04 IndCtApp)
[Apparently originally NFP]
Friedlander, Judge
Jeffrey Williams was charged with four counts of Criminal Deviate Conduct and Rape, all class A felonies. On interlocutory appeal, Williams presents a single issue for review: Did the trial court improperly deny his Motion for Specific Discovery requesting the alleged victim’s mental health and prescription records? We affirm in part, reverse in part, and remand. * * *

Thus, in determining whether Williams’s request was properly denied, we must balance K.W.M.’s right to maintain the confidentiality of her prescription drug records with Williams’s right to adequately defend the instant charges. Keeping information confidential may suffice as a reason to deny discovery, In re WTHR-TV, 693 N.E.2d 1, and I.C. § 25-26-13-15 indicates our legislature’s desire to protect the confidentiality of prescription drug records in certain circumstances. Here, however, the underlying crimes are of special significance. Williams is charged with rape and criminal deviate conduct based on K.W.M.’s graphic allegations of sexual assault. Williams and K.W.M. shared a prior intimate relationship before the incident in question. The record indicates that Williams will defend himself, in part, on grounds that the events were consensual based on the couple’s past romantic relationship and their particular sexual proclivities. In sexual assault cases, perception of events and credibility are crucial factors with the potential to significantly influence a fact-finder’s determination. Access to information that would call into question such perception could affect Williams’s ability to adequately defend himself and is paramount to K.W.M.’s confidentiality concerns as asserted by the State. We therefore reverse the trial court’s denial of Williams’s Motion to the extent it seeks access to K.W.M.’s prescription drug records. Judgment affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.
BAKER, J., and DARDEN, J., concur.

Posted by Marcia Oddi on December 22, 2004 02:19 PM
Posted to Ind. Sup.Ct. Decisions