Justia Constitutional Law Opinion Summaries

Articles Posted in Supreme Court of Indiana
by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court reversing the order of the City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA) affirming the decision of the City of Bloomington citing UJ-Eighty Corporation for a zoning violation, holding that there were not constitutional violations in this case.UJ-Eighty owned a fraternity house at Indiana University (IU) in Bloomington that was located within a district zoned by the City to permit limited residential uses. UJ-Eighty leased its house to an IU-sanctioned fraternity, but before the lease ended, IU revoked its recognition and approval of the fraternity, which meant that no one could live there. Bloomington cited UJ-Eighty for a zoning violation when two residents remained in the house. The BZA affirmed. UJ-Eighty appealed, arguing that the City impermissibly delegated its zoning authority to IJ by allowing it unilaterally to define fraternities and sororities. The trial court agreed and struck down the ordinance's definition of fraternities and sororities under the state and federal constitutions. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that Bloomington did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment because the ordinance was not an impermissible delegation of power or a denial of due process. View "City of Bloomington Board of Zoning Appeals v. UJ-Eighty Corp." on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss the State's habitual-offender allegation and remanded with instructions to vacate Defendant's habitual-offender enhancement, holding Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by a six-plus-year delay.Defendant was serving an eighty-year sentence when the trial court vacated his thirty-year habitual-offender enhancement. More than six years passed before the State retried the habitual-offender allegation. Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, but the trial court denied the motion, eventually finding Defendant to be a habitual offender. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Criminal Rule 4(C) does not apply to a habitual-offender retrial; but (2) Defendant's right to a speedy trial was violated, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to relief. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of the murder and attempted murder of his family members, holding that one of the jurors committed gross misconduct and that, under the circumstances, Defendant did not demonstrate that the misconduct probably harmed him.After Defendant was convicted, he filed a motion to set aside the verdict based on juror misconduct, alleging that one juror, L.W., falsely answered the juror questionnaire. The juror wrote "N/A," meaning not applicable, in response to questions about the jurors past criminal history and whether she had been a victim of a crime, when those answers should have been a yes. The trial court denied Defendant's motion to set aside the verdict. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) juror L.W. committed gross misconduct; but (2) despite the gross misconduct, it was unlikely that Defendant was harmed. View "Loehrlein v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed Defendant's conviction of dealing in a look-a-like substance, a Level 5 felony under Ind. Code 35-348-4-4.6, holding that the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.Defendant offered to sell a substance to a strange at a casino, and the incident was captured by video surveillance. A gaming enforcement agent took Defendant to an interview room, patted him down, and found packaged drugs. Defendant moved to suppress the evidence stemming from the pat-down. The trial court denied the motion and found Defendant guilty. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that the search and seizure proceeded within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment, and therefore, the trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court finding a statute stopping the City of Bloomington's proposed annexation of several areas of land and prohibiting the City from attempting to annex the areas for five years unconstitutional, holding that the statute is unconstitutional special legislation in violation of Ind. Const. art. IV, 23.While Bloomington was taking steps toward annexation, the General Assembly passed Ind. Code 36-4-3-11.8 cutting off the City's proposed annexation and prohibiting the City from trying to annex the same areas for the next five years. The City sought declaratory and injunctive relief. The trial court granted summary judgment for the City, declaring the statute unconstitutional under Article 4, Sections 19 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the City can bring this declaratory judgment action against the Governor; and (2) section 11.8 is unconstitutional special legislation. View "Holcomb v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court in this declaratory judgment action against Governor Holcomb, holding that the statute passed by the legislature in 2017 stopping the City of Bloomington's proposed annexation of several areas of land and prohibiting the City from trying to annex the areas for five years is unconstitutional special legislation in violation of Ind. Const. art. IV, 23.In 2017, the Bloomington mayor announced plans for a proposed annexation of several areas of land. After the City Council adopted the initiating resolutions and Bloomington took its initial steps toward annexation, the General Assembly passed legislation codified at Ind. Code 36-4-3-11.8 cutting off Bloomington's proposed annexation and prohibiting the City from trying to annex the same areas for the next five years. The City brought this suit seeking declarations that section 11.8 constitutes unconstitutional special legislation and violates article 4, section 19's single-subject rule. The trial court declared section 11.8 unconstitutional under article 4, sections 19 and 23 of the Indiana Constitution. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding that section 11.8 constitutes impermissible special legislation. View "Holcomb v. City of Bloomington" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Judicial Court affirmed the judgment of the trial court convicting Defendant of "dealing in a look-a-like substance," a level five felony under Ind. Code 35-48-4-4.6, holding that trial court did not err in denying Defendant's motion to suppress.At a casino, Defendant offered to sell a substance to a stranger, who reported the incident. Thereafter, a Gaming Enforcement Agent led Defendant to an interview room and proceeded to pat him down. The trial court admitted the evidence discovered as a result of the pat down. The Supreme Court affirmed, holding (1) the search and seizure proceeded within the bounds of the Fourth Amendment; and (2) therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting evidence obtained as a result. View "Johnson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reduced Defendant's aggregate sentence to 100 years, holding that Defendant's appellate counsel was ineffective on appeal by failing to bring an Appellate Rule 7(B) challenge to the appropriateness of Defendant's sentence.Defendant was convicted of two counts of murder, felony armed robbery, and felony conspiracy to commit criminal gang activity. The trial court sentenced Defendant to an aggregate sentence of 181 years. Defendant later sought post-conviction relief, arguing that, because he was a juvenile when he committed the crimes at issue, the criminal gang enhancement was unconstitutional as applied and that both his trial counsel and appellate counsel were ineffective. The post-conviction court denied Defendant's petition for relief. The Supreme Court revised Defendant's sentence downward to an aggregate 100 years, holding (1) Defendant's original sentence was not unconstitutional under the Eighth Amendment because the sentence was not subject to the requirements of Miller v. Alabama, 567 U.S. 460 (2012); but (2) Defendant's appellate counsel performed inadequately by failing to request appellate review of the sentence's appropriateness under Appellate Rule 7(B). View "Wilson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the order of the trial court denying Defendant's motion to dismiss his habitual offender enhancement, holding that Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated by an extraordinary six-plus-year delay.Defendant was serving an eighty-year sentence when the trial court vacated his thirty-year habitual offender enhancement. The court granted the State permission to retry the habitual offender allegation, but it would be nearly six and a half years before Defendant was retried. Before his retrial, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss, alleging a violation of Ind. Crim. R. 4(C) and his constitutional right to a speedy trial. The court denied Defendant's motion to dismiss. After a trial, a jury found that Defendant was a habitual offender. The Supreme Court reversed, holding (1) Defendant was not entitled to discharge under Rule 4(C) because that rule does not apply to the retrial of a habitual offender allegation; but (2) Defendant's constitutional right to a speedy trial was violated, and therefore, Defendant was entitled to relief. View "Watson v. State" on Justia Law

by
The Supreme Court reversed the judgment of the trial court suppressing blood test results obtained the morning of a vehicle collision, holding that the blood-draw search warrant application satisfied the filing requirement under Ind. Code 35-33-5-2(a).Defendant caused a head-on collision when he drove the wrong way on a freeway. Defendant filed a motion to suppress blood test results obtained the morning of the accident, arguing that Ind. Code 35-33-5-2 and his constitutional rights against unreasonable search and seizure were violated when the arresting state trooper failed properly to file a probable cause affidavit to obtain a blood-test search warrant. The trial court granted the motion, concluding that a copy of the probable cause affidavit was not properly "filed" until a few hours after it had been presented to the warrant-authorizing judge and swiftly executed. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the blood-draw search warrant application satisfied the filing requirement under section 35-33-5-2(a) because (1) the warrant-authorizing judge certified that the affidavit had been properly filed with her when the search warrant was issued; and (2) even if the affidavit was filed a few hours late it was still valid under Indiana's substantial compliance filing doctrine. View "State v. Ryder" on Justia Law