Case Links for June 21, 2005
You would think that when you get sued and notify your insurance company that you are facing a claim for about $670 million dollars, your insurance company would at least respond. Cinerama sent five letters over years to Safety, and never heard back a thing. Finally, Cinergy sued Safety, and despite the arbitration clause in the insurance policy, the trial court said Cinergy did not have to submit the claim to arbitration as Safety’s failure to respond was a waiver of the arbitration clause. Court of Appeals says it wasn’t.
Appeals Court reverses the trial court’s denial of a motion to suppress evidence in this marijuana possession case. Court found that the search warrant was based on information that “lacked the indicia of probable cause” and could not be relied on, in good faith, by the officers. The warrant authorized the search of a barber shop after an informant was given money to go in and buy drugs. Although the informant did come out with marijuana, it was reported that he purchased it from an unidentified man in the barber shop. As the barber shop is a public place, additional information connected the drug seller to the business would be required to authorize a search of the business.
Court of Appeals finds fundamental error requiring the reversal of Black’s murder conviction in the trial court’s order, entered at the behest of the State, preventing the defense from questioning the potential jurors about self defense during selection.
Gillem had some beers at the Indianapolis Speedway and proceeded to drive home, or at least try to. He ended up crashing into another vehicle after running a stop sign, cause the deaths of 2 and leaving a third person with burns. Gillem plead guilty to OWI causing death and the court imposed an aggravated sentence. Gillem appealed, citing Blakely, misuse of aggravators, and improper weighing of aggravating and mitigating factors. But, Gillem had a record, so Blakely does not help him, and the Court of Appeals upholds the decision.
Mr. Shriner wove himself a tangled web at the trial of this child molesting case. First on direct exam, he mentions that when he first talked to the police, they asked him to take a lie detector test, and he had agreed. Now these tests are not admissible in Indiana, unless the parties stipulate beforehand to their admission, but it would not have mattered here as Mr. Shriner ultimately refused to take the test. The trial judge decided that, as the defendant had brought it up, the State should be permitted to establish that Shriner had refused the test. Outside of the presence of the jury, the prosecutor was permitted to ask Shriner under oath if he had ever taken any lie detector test with respect to this case and Shriner said “no.” Defense counsel was then compelled to get up and note that, in fact, Shriner had taken a lie detector test arranged by the defense. The prosecutor was then permitted to not only establish that Shriner refused the officer’s offer of a test, but that he had just then, during the trial and in front of the judge, lied about having taken any test. Shriner appealed the conviction arguing that the trial court should have declared a mistrial after he brought up the offer to take polygraph test, and further, the State should not have been permitted to impeach him using his inconsistent statement. The Court of Appeals says that Mr. Shriner created the problems he now complains of - no error.
