Monica, James & Diane Witte v. Mikayla Mundy, et al. (1/6/05 IndSCt) [Torts]
Boehm, Justice
A child and her mother sued when the child was struck by the defendants’ car. On the eve of trial the mother moved to dismiss her claim. The trial court granted the motion to dismiss but denied the defendants’ motion to add the mother as a nonparty for purposes of comparative fault. The jury then returned a verdict for the defense. We hold that it was error to refuse to add the mother as a nonparty, but because the plaintiffs invited the error, neither plaintiff can obtain a new trial on that basis. * * *Mirtha McHenry v. State of Indiana (1/6/05 IndSCt) [Criminal Law & Procedure]The trial court’s granting a new trial is reversed. This case is remanded with instructions to enter judgment based on the jury verdict.
Shepard, C.J., and Dickson, Sullivan, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
Following a jury trial, the defendant, Mirtha McHenry, a bank teller, was convicted of forgery, a class C felony, and theft, a class D felony, as a result of her actions relating to an unauthorized withdrawal of $6,500 from the account of a bank customer. Concluding that the evidence was insufficient to establish her guilt of either crime, the Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded with instructions that she be discharged. We grant transfer and affirm the trial court.[*]Comment re Justice Dickson's footnote: I, for one, am glad to see this effort at change and hope it meets with acclaim. However, it is easier to see its impact if you read the case in its intended format -- the Word or WordPerfect version, or a pdf approximation thereof, rather than a butchered html version. Here is a link to the Word version of the case that I have converted to PDF for easy access. Notice that the citations are in footnotes; matters of substance are in the text. I will discuss this further in a separate entry after I review my copy of Bryan Garner's book, Legal Writing in Plain English. Posted by Marcia Oddi at January 6, 2005 02:25 PMIn her appeal from the convictions, the defendant alleges three grounds for reversal: (1) insufficient evidence; (2) refusal to strike two jurors for cause; and (3) erroneous admission of surveillance videotape.
1. Sufficiency of Evidence * * * In reversing the jury's verdict, the Court of Appeals failed to restrict its consideration to only the evidence and reasonable inferences favorable to the trial court's verdict, but instead r eweighed the evidence, improperly substituting its own judgment for that of the jury. While the jury could have drawn the same inferences as the Court of Appeals, they did not. They returned a unanimous verdict of guilt on each count. * * * Finding that the probative evidence and reasonable inferences drawn from the evidence could have allowed a reasonable trier of fact to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, we conclude that the evidence was sufficient to support the judgment.
2. Failure to Exclude Jurors for Cause * * * In the present case, the jurors were challenged not for their relationship with the State but for their status as depositors in the bank where the alleged crimes occurred. The trial court co nsidered the challenge, questioned the jurors, and then denied the challenge. We decline to find any abuse of discretion in this ruling.
3. Surveillance Videotape * * * Rulings on the admission of evidence are subject to appellate review for abuse of discretion. See footnote We are not persuaded that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the videotape.
Conclusion. We grant transfer and affirm the judgment of the trial court.
Shepard, C.J., and Sullivan, Boehm, and Rucker, JJ., concur.
____
[*]As an experiment, this opinion departs from the author's usual style of citation and footnote use. Cf. Indiana Appellate Rule 22. Generally adhering to the footnote recommendations of Bryan Garner, The Winning Brief, 139-47 (2d ed. 2004), all citations unessential to the text are placed in footnotes, and substantive matter that otherwise might appear in footnotes is included in the text. This revised format does not meet with universal approval. See Richard A. Posner, Against Footnotes, 38 Court. Rev. 24 (Summer 2001). The public, the bench, and the bar are invited to comment to the Supreme Court Administrator, 315 State House, Indianapolis, IN 46204.