Missing Links
It’s that time of year again. Time for those companies that move all the “out-of-state” fireworks through Indiana outlet to challenge the State’s effort to limit, tax and otherwise restrict these sales. Although the timing is right (4th of July), this particular case stated years ago, back in the mid 90’s when Celebration attempted to challenge the fees charged by the State Fire Marshall on fireworks distributors. Here, Celebration filed its action in the trial court before challenging the Fire Marshal at the administrative level, a move that the Court here decides is fatal to its effort as the claimant failed to “exhaust administrative remedies.” Celebration tried to argue that it did not have to as in the Twin Eagle case (Indiana’s SWANK case), but the Court did not buy it.
Mr. Fowler and Ms. Perry lived together for 16 months and had a child together. Mr. Fowler bought Perry a $4,599.00 engagement ring, and when the relationship soured, he sued for the ring (actually the proceeds of the ring, which had been stolen, and covered by insurance). He also sued for almost $10,000 from money he gave to Perry to manage and pay bills with while he was focused on his studies. He did not get the 10 grand, but the Court determined that an engagement ring is a “conditional gift” and the giver is entitled to its return if the condition (marriage) is not fulfilled. The Court also determined that (in keeping with the divorce standards) Indiana is a “no-fault” state, in that the issue does not turn on who caused the proposed marriage to fail.
Rehearing on request of Mr. Jackson for the Court of appeals to consider the 7th Circuit case of Dalton v. Battaglia. Both cases deal with lost or destroyed guilty plea transcripts, and in the Dalton case, the 7th Circuit found that the usual “presumption of regularity” (i.e. That standard and legal procedure was followed in taking the plea) should not apply because of the time it took for the State of Illinois to respond to Mr. Dalton’s request for a transcript, and the fact that Dalton had a pending habeas action challenging his detention when the records were purged. The Court here confirms it earlier denial of Jackson’s request for relief, noting that Jackson waited 20 years after his release to challenge the conviction, and hence the Dalton case is not applicable.
Williams raised an interesting Batson issue: Should Batson be extended to preemptory challenged to jurors based on their expressed religious beliefs? Here a juror questioned whether she could serve on the jury because her faith forbade her to sit in judgment of another (”judge not, least . . .”). The Court jumps the issue (not raised at the trial level, only at the appellate level, so it was waived), and instead finds that the prosecutor’s reason for striking a black member of the juror were sufficiently “race neutral.” The trial court also refused to answer a question from the jury during deliberations without notifying the parties, a clear violation of established procedure, but the Court finds the error harmless.
Finally, Williams enhanced murder sentence did not violate Blakely as he had a criminal record, albeit a misdemeanor record. This case is a tough one as the Court gives the state and the trial court the benefit of the doubt (race neutral striking and harmless error) in a case that had previously been deadlocks 2 times and once mistried. I guess the fourth time was the charm for the state, but I doubt this is the last we have heard from Mr. Williams.
