Gary v. State, 021219 INSC, 18A-CR-01101
|Opinion Judge:||Steve David, Acting Chief Justice of Indiana.|
|Party Name:||Tervarus L. Gary, Appellant(s), v. State Of Indiana, Appellee(s).|
|Judge Panel:||Massa, J., Slaughter, J., and Goff, J., vote to deny transfer. David, J., dissents to the denial of transfer with separate opinion in which Rush, C.J., joins. David, Justice, dissenting. Rush, C.J., joins.|
|Case Date:||February 12, 2019|
|Court:||Supreme Court of Indiana|
Trial Court Case No. 20D06-1712-FD-7
Steve David, Acting Chief Justice of Indiana.
This matter has come before the Indiana Supreme Court on a petition to transfer jurisdiction, filed pursuant to Indiana Appellate Rules 56(B) and 57, following the issuance of a decision by the Court of Appeals. The Court has reviewed the decision of the Court of Appeals and the submitted record on appeal, all briefs filed in the Court of Appeals, and all materials filed in connection with the request to transfer jurisdiction have been made available to the Court for review. Each participating member has had the opportunity to voice that Justice's views on the case in conference with the other Justices, and each participating member of the Court has voted on the petition.
Being duly advised, the Court DENIES the petition to transfer.
Massa, J., Slaughter, J., and Goff, J., vote to deny transfer.
David, J., dissents to the denial of transfer with separate opinion in which Rush, C.J., joins.
David, Justice, dissenting.
Court technology is presently advancing at a rapid pace, making the work of trial courts more efficient than ever before. Case timelines are shortened, paperwork is reduced, and costs of administration are down- all thanks to the advancement and availability of technology. But should technological conveniences such as video conferencing replace a defendant's right to be physically present during his or her sentencing hearing? I think the answer is no. I respectfully dissent from the denial of transfer in this case.
In Hawkins v. State, 982 N.E.2d 997, 1002 (Ind. 2013), we considered this very issue. In that case, the defendant was tried in absentia after missing his trial. After he was taken into custody, he appeared at his sentencing hearing from jail via video conference. On appeal, the defendant argued, inter alia, that the trial court abused its discretion by sentencing him via video. Id. at 998. While stopping short of finding a constitutional due process right to...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP