Upcoming Supreme Court Cases
On Wednesday the Indiana Supreme Court is set to hear oral arguments for three cases. Ellenwine v. Fairley:
The Appellants’ child died as a result of alleged medical malpractice more than two years after the alleged malpractice occurred, and the Appellants filed a wrongful death action against the medical provider. The St. Joseph Superior Court granted the medical provider’s motion for summary judgment. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed and remanded the case to the trial court, holding the applicable statute of limitations could not constitutionally be applied to bar the Appellants’ wrongful death action. Ellenwine v. Fairley, 818 N.E.2d 961 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). The Appellee has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal.
Davidson v. State:
Appellant was charged with the murder of Samuel Creekmore. At the trial of his case, Appellant tendered certain jury instructions, which the trial court rejected. A jury returned a guilty verdict. The Indiana Court of Appeals reversed Appellant’s conviction, ruling that the trial court committed reversible error by giving jury instructions that relieved the State of its burden of proving an element of the charged offense beyond a reasonable doubt. Davidson v. State, 825 N.E.2d 414 (Ind. Ct. App. 2005), vacated. The Indiana Supreme Court has granted a petition to transfer the case, thus vacating the opinion of the Court of Appeals, and has assumed jurisdiction over the appeal.
Dorsey Mathews v. State:
In 1995, Dorsey Matthews was convicted in the Marion Superior Court, Criminal Division, of one count of murder, six counts of arson as a Class A felony, and two counts of Arson as a Class B felony and sentenced to 145 years. The trial court granted Matthews leave to file a belated appeal, and the Court of Appeals vacated one arson conviction and affirmed the remaining convictions and sentence. Matthews v. State, — N.E.2d —, No. 49A02-0406-PC-493 (Ind. Ct. App. March 31, 2005). Matthews has petitioned the Supreme Court to accept jurisdiction over the appeal. For purposes of their preparation, the Court has advised the parties that it is primarily interested in their discussing whether the language of the version of arson statute under which Matthews was convicted should be read to permit conviction on multiple counts of arson when the defendant, by means of a single “fire or explosive,” causes bodily injury or serious bodily injury to multiple victims. The Court has further advised the parties that their arguments should focus on principles of statutory construction and interpretation, cf., Kelly v. State, 539 N.E.2d 25 (Ind. 1989), rather than on principles of double jeopardy.
