August 27, 2004

Indiana Decisions - Three today from Court of Appeals

Jennings Aaron Rowe v. State of Indiana (8/27/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
May, Judge

Jennings Aaron Rowe appeals his conviction of failure to return to lawful detention, a Class D felony. He questions whether the evidence was sufficient to prove he failed to return to lawful detention. We affirm. * * *
SULLIVAN, J., and VAIDIK, J., concur.
Jeremy Foster v. State of Indiana (8/27/04 IndCtApp) [Criminal Law & Procedure]
Sharpnack, Judge
Jeremy M. Foster appeals the trial court’s revocation of his probation. Foster raises one issue, which we restate as whether the condition of his probation prohibiting him from possessing sexually explicit materials is unreasonably vague. We reverse. * * *

The condition is not sufficiently clear to inform Foster of what conduct would result in his being returned to prison. Consequently, this condition of probation suffers from the same vagueness problem as the conditions in Smith and Fitzgerald. As a result, we conclude that the condition is void for vagueness and that the trial court abused its discretion by revoking Foster’s probation. See, e.g., Smith, 779 N.E.2d at 117-118; Fitzgerald, 805 N.E.2d at 866-867. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the trial court’s revocation of Foster’s probation. Reversed.
DARDEN, J. and ROBB, J. concur

Infectious Disease of Indianapolis, et al. v. Ruth Toney (8/27/04 IndCtApp) [Medical Malpractice]
Vaidik, Judge
Infectious Disease of Indianapolis, P.S.C. and Douglas H. Webb, M.D. (collectively, “Dr. Webb”) bring this discretionary interlocutory appeal challenging the denial of Dr. Webb’s fourth motion for summary judgment in a medical malpractice suit filed by Ruth Toney. Dr. Webb claims that because Toney has received her full measure of damages from another health care provider and from the Indiana Patient’s Compensation Fund (“the Fund”), she is collaterally estopped from collecting additional damages from him. We agree. However, we affirm the trial court’s denial of Dr. Webb’s summary judgment motion because Toney has not been permitted the opportunity to establish Dr. Webb’s liability and, therefore, collateral estoppel does not preclude her from pursuing her claim against him for medical malpractice—albeit knowing that she cannot recover damages from him—if she so desires.

Posted by Marcia Oddi at August 27, 2004 03:36 PM