In addition to Burke v. Bennett (see our summary here), which settled the outcome of the 2007 Terre Haute mayoral election, the Indiana Supreme Court handed down six more opinions on Tuesday, June 16.
Pruitt v. State – Death Penalty Rehearing
In Pruitt v. State, the Indiana Supreme Court denied Tommy Ray Pruitt’s request for rehearing from the Court’s March 31 decision affirming his death sentence for murdering Morgan County Sheriff’s Deputy Daniel Starnes. (See our summary of the Court’s March 31 decision here).
In its March opinion, the Court concluded that five of Pruitt’s post-conviction claims of ineffective assistance of counsel had been procedurally defaulted. On rehearing, the Court concluded it should have addressed one of those claims on the merits: that his counsel was ineffective for misinforming the jury that the State would present expert testimony rebutting Pruitt’s assertion of mental retardation. The Supreme Court affirmed the post-conviction court’s conclusion that his counsel’s decision to do so was not deficient, but rather a conveyance of a reasonable expectation regarding the testimony that would be presented.
Breaston v. State and Farris v. State – Habitual Offender Enhancements
In a pair of related opinions, the Indiana Supreme Court addressed habitual offender sentence enhancements in the context of unrelated charges and charges that could have been consolidated. In both situations, the Court recognized that the enhancement can dramatically effects the sentence length and concluded that once a defendant’s sentence has been enhanced, it cannot be enhanced a second time without statutory authorization.
In Breaston v. State, the Court concluded that habitual offender enhancements on separate and unrelated charges may not be ordered to serve continuously. In this case, Breaston was convicted of felony theft and placed on work release. After he failed to return to detention, he was convicted of felony escape and his sentence enhanced as a habitual offender. In a separate proceeding, while in prison from his earlier convictions, Breaston was charged and convicted for felony theft, again as a habitual offender. Under these circumstances, the Court concluded that the habitual offender statute did not expressly authorize that the separate enhancements be served consecutively. As such, the trial court’s imposition of consecutive enhancements was error.
In Farris v. State, the Court concluded that habitual offender enhancements were also prohibited from running consecutively where the enhancements arise from separate trials that could have been consolidated. In this case, Farris received his first habitual offender enhancement after he and an accomplice were convicted of felony robbery. The accomplice agreed to testify against Farris at trial. Farris instructed a friend to kill the accomplice because of his cooperation with police. As a result, Farris was convicted of murder and aggravated assault, and his sentence was again enhanced because of the habitual criminal statute. Finding that the robbery, murder, and battery were based on a “series of acts connected together,” the Indiana Supreme Court concluded that the charges could have been consolidated. Under those circumstances, the Court explained, “the State is barred from seeking multiple, pyramiding habitual offender sentence enhancements by bringing successive prosecutions for charges which could have been consolidated for trial.”
Thomas v. Blackford County Area BZA – Standing Determinations
By Viki Lewinski
In Thomas v. Blackford County Area Board of Zoning Appeals, the Indiana Supreme Court affirmed a trial court’s decision that a property owner lacked standing to challenge a BZA decision. Doing so, the Court explained the procedural steps available to raise standing issues.
In this case, Oolman Dairy sought and obtained a special exception from the BZA to build and operate a confined animal feeding operation ("CAFO"). Elizabeth Thomas owned property located near the CAFO. She filed a petition for certiorari in the Circuit Court at which she challenged the special exception. Oolman intervened and moved to dismiss Thomas's petition under Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). Oolman argued that Thomas lacked standing to challenge BZA's ruling because she was not an "aggrieved party" under the applicable statute. The trial court denied the 12(B)(6) motion. But, it did hold an evidentiary hearing at which it determined that Thomas failed to establish standing, and dismissed her petition.
The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed the trial court’s decisions. As Thomas’s complaint satisfactorily alleged that she was in fact an aggrieved party, a 12(B)(6) dismissal was properly denied. However, the Supreme Court explained that standing – like personal jurisdiction – may be decided apart from the pleadings (or a motion for summary judgment), after a hearing in which the trial court considers evidence and makes factual determinations. Those factual determinations, the Court explained, will be reversed only if clearly erroneous. And, in this case, the Court concluded that the trial court’s findings were not clearly erroneous.
Viki Lewinski is a student at the Indiana University School of Law – Indianapolis, and a summer associate with Bingham McHale.
In re J.M. – Termination of Parental Rights
By Meaghan Klem
In Matter of J.M., the Indiana Supreme Court held that an Allen County trial court’s judgment denying the State’s petition to terminate the parental rights of incarcerated parents was not clearly erroneous. In this case, J.M.’s parents were both incarcerated for charges related to dealing in methamphetamine. After being placed with several relatives, J.M was eventually placed in licensed foster care. Shortly thereafter, the trial court established a permanency plan for J.M. that included termination of parental rights and adoption. But, when the State petitioned to terminate those rights, the trial court considered evidence leading it to the conclusion that the parents may yet be able to provide a home for J.M.
The Indiana Supreme Court found that the trial court properly considered four factors in reaching its judgment. First, the conclusion that the parents’ release dates were soon to occur was not erroneous and was relevant because their incarceration was the reason for J.M.’s removal. Second, J.M.’s mother had participated fully in the court’s “Parent Participation Plan,” and both parents fully cooperated with required services during incarceration. Third, both parents had a relationship with J.M. prior to incarceration and both tried to maintain contact with him during their imprisonment. Finally, the parents had demonstrated an ability to establish a stable and appropriate life for J.M. upon their release. Father had a job, a new home for the family, and a new car for transportation, and Mother had obtained her bachelor’s degree and completed a community transition program. Therefore, the judgment finding that conditions leading to J.M.’s removal from his parents’ care would be remedied and that termination of his parents’ parental rights would not be in his best interest was not erroneous.
Meaghan Klem is a student at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington, and a summer associate with Bingham McHale.
Spar v. Cha – Defenses To Medical Malpractice Claims
By Patrick Ziepolt
In Spar v. Cha, a unanimous Indiana Supreme Court ruled that, with few exceptions, incurred risk or assumed risk is not a defense to medical malpractice. In this case, Dr. Cha treated Brenda Spar for difficulty in becoming pregnant. During laparoscopic surgery on Spar’s abdomen, Cha perforated Spar’s bowel. Spar suffered complications from the resulting infection. At trial, Spar proceeded on separate theories of (1) negligence in diagnosis or treatment and (2) lack of informed consent. The trial court instructed the jury on the defense of incurred risk. Cha argued that Spar knew of the risk of infection and accepted the risk by going forward with the procedure. The jury returned a general verdict in favor of Cha. On appeal, Spar argued that the trial court erred by instructing the jury on incurred risk. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, but divided on the validity of the incurred risk defense in various medical malpractice scenarios.
On transfer, the Indiana Supreme Court enumerated four different categories of defense that have been referred to as “incurred risk” or “assumption of risk”: express consent, two types of implied consent, and contributory negligence. While contributory negligence remains a valid defense to a malpractice claim, the Court concluded that incurred risk via consent “has little legitimate application in the medical malpractice context.” Because of the disparity of knowledge between physician and patient, there is “virtually no scenario in which a patient can consent to allow a healthcare provider to exercise less than ordinary care.” The Court preserved the defense where a patient has failed to follow the instruction of a physician, and suggested the possibility of other exceptions to its general rule (e.g. refusal of blood transfusion for religious reasons). Pursuant to Indiana Code § 34-18-12-8, a patient may also assume risks related to nondisclosure if she refuses to be informed of the dangers of a medical procedure. The Court also held that evidence of Spar’s consent to prior surgeries was admissible insofar as it showed her actual knowledge of the surgical risks at hand. But, based on the instructions as given, the Court reversed the judgment of the trial court and remanded the action for a new trial.
Patrick Ziepolt is a student at the Indiana University Maurer School of Law – Bloomington, and a summer associate with Bingham McHale.

Subscribe
Recent Posts
- What is the Difference Between Venture Capital, Private Equity?
- Recapping the 2018 BGD Legislative Conference
- Municipal Utility Sale Affirmed with Valuable Practice Pointers Learned
- Judge Finds Accepting HUD Subsidy Does Not Stop Eviction Process
- Court Finds No Violation of Public Policy Where Challenge to Trust Causes Minors to Forfeit Inheritance
- Trust Grantor Fails to Exercise His Retained Power Properly
- Five Reasons Why Everyone Needs an Estate Plan
- Indiana Supreme Court Rules, in a Matter of First Impression, “Blocked-Crossing” Statute Preempted under Federal Law
- More Lessons Learned from the Theranos Debacle
- Municipal Utilities Need to Be Smart When Implementing a Smart Meter Program
Categories
Contributors
- David A. Adams
- John W. Ames
- Jason T. Ams
- Kelly D. Bartley
- Brent R. Baughman
- Kate E. Beatty
- Jeffrey T. Bennett
- Keith A. Bice
- Blaine R. Blood
- Jenny E. Bobbitt
- Daniel L. Boots
- Melissa Norman Bork
- Claude R. Chip Bowles Jr.
- Andy Bowman
- Richard Boydston
- Janeia L. Brounson
- Ian J. Busche
- Brian W. Chellgren, Ph.D.
- Anne A. Chesnut
- Margaret Christensen
- Grantland M. Clapacs
- Briana Clark
- Ross D. Cohen
- Jared A. Cox
- Bruce E. Cryder
- John R. Cummins
- Alan J. Dansker
- Morgan A. Davenport
- D. Rusty Denton
- Brenda K. DeVries
- Ivan M. Diamond
- Rosmond J. Dolen
- Trisha S. Dudlo
- Greg J. Duncan
- Mary G. Eaves
- Philip C. Eschels
- Benjamin J. Evans
- Gregory J. Ewing AICP
- Daniel E. Fisher
- K. Michael Gaerte
- Jeremy P. Gerch
- Carmin D. Grandinetti
- Peter H. Grills
- Andrew Gruber
- J. Mark Grundy
- Alex Gude
- Justin Hage
- Meaghan Klem Haller
- Brad Hasler
- Jeremy Hill
- James M. Hinshaw
- James R. Irving
- Dwayne Isaacs
- Phil L. Isenbarger
- Eric L. Ison
- Benjamin M. Jakubowicz
- Janet P. Jakubowicz
- Christopher W.D. Jones
- Justin W. Jones
- William J. Kaiser Jr.
- Larry Kane
- Margaret E. Keane
- Jan Keefer
- J. Richard Kiefer
- June N. King
- Michael Kohlhaas
- Grant Krevda
- R. Clay Larkin
- Charles J. Lavelle
- Scott Leisz
- Benjamin J. Lewis
- Mark A. Loyd
- John S. Lueken
- Peggy B. Lyndrup
- Brad R. Maurer
- John McCauley, CIPP (US)
- Tobin McClamroch
- Michael J. McGee
- David T. McGimpsey
- Kevin P. McGoff
- V. Brandon McGrath
- Jeffrey A. McKenzie
- Holland N. McTyeire V
- Michael A. Mercurio
- Eric J. Metzger
- Brett J. Miller
- Kyle W. Miller
- Melissa Buckley Minix
- Ali Bartlett Miranda
- Mark Molter
- Christie A. Moore
- Whitney Mosby
- Karl Mulvaney
- R. Matthew Neff
- Gregory A. Neibarger
- Lauren R. Nichols
- Kimberly J. O'Donnell
- Mark H. Oppenheimer
- Tandy C. Patrick
- Andrew M. Pendexter
- Julianna M. Plawecki
- Matthew Price
- Nana Quay-Smith
- James Reed
- Kyle T. Resetarits
- Bailey Roese
- Rene R. Savarise
- Thomas C. Scherer
- Phillip D. Scott
- Randolph Seger
- Philip Sicuso
- Leslie M. Smith
- Mary E. Solada
- Hans Steck
- Kenji Tashiro
- Jennifer Kahney Thompson
- Peter L. Thurman Jr.
- David O. Tittle
- Matthew Troyer
- Job D. (Darby) Turner
- Tonya Vachirasomboon
- Christopher Van Bever
- D. Bryan Weese
- Brian W. Welch
- Patrick J. Welsh
- Shannon L. Williams
- Steven R. Wilson
- April A. Wimberg
- W. Plumer Wiseman Jr.
Archives
- January 2019
- December 2018
- November 2018
- October 2018
- September 2018
- August 2018
- July 2018
- June 2018
- May 2018
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- February 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
- May 2016
- April 2016
- March 2016
- February 2016
- January 2016
- December 2015
- November 2015
- October 2015
- September 2015
- August 2015
- July 2015
- June 2015
- May 2015
- April 2015
- March 2015
- February 2015
- January 2015
- December 2014
- November 2014
- October 2014
- September 2014
- August 2014
- July 2014
- June 2014
- May 2014
- April 2014
- March 2014
- February 2014
- January 2014
- December 2013
- November 2013
- October 2013
- September 2013
- August 2013
- July 2013
- June 2013
- May 2013
- April 2013
- March 2013
- February 2013
- January 2013
- December 2012
- November 2012
- October 2012
- September 2012
- August 2012
- July 2012
- June 2012
- May 2012
- April 2012
- March 2012
- February 2012
- January 2012
- December 2011
- November 2011
- October 2011
- September 2011
- August 2011
- July 2011
- June 2011
- May 2011
- April 2011
- March 2011
- February 2011
- January 2011
- December 2010
- November 2010
- October 2010
- September 2010
- August 2010
- July 2010
- June 2010
- May 2010
- April 2010
- March 2010
- February 2010
- January 2010
- December 2009
- November 2009
- October 2009
- September 2009
- August 2009
- July 2009
- June 2009
- May 2009
- April 2009
- March 2009
- February 2009
- January 2009
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- August 2005
- June 2005