State ex rel. Jeffries v. Lawrence Circuit Court, 684S231
| Decision Date | 06 September 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 684S231,684S231 |
| Citation | 467 N.E.2d 741 |
| Parties | STATE of Indiana, ex rel. Clifford JEFFRIES, Relator, v. The LAWRENCE CIRCUIT COURT and the Honorable Linda L. Chezem, as Judge Thereof, Respondents. |
| Court | Indiana Supreme Court |
Douglas Bridges, Barbara Benson, Berry, Bridges, Benson & Benson, Bloomington, for relator.
Donald Hickman, Pros. Atty., Bedford, for respondents.
Relator sought a Writ of Mandamus to compel the trial judge to grant relator's motion for a change of judge. Following oral presentation of the petition for the writ on June 12, 1984, this Court advised the parties that it would deny the petition. Relator elected to file the petition and the related papers with the Clerk of this Court. We now affirm denial of the petition.
On January 24, 1984, relator was charged by information in the Lawrence County Court with the offense of receiving stolen property. The State moved for, and was granted, a transfer to the respondent court. On April 23, 1984, relator moved for a change of judge. The motion was denied by Judge Chezem because relator failed to set forth grounds for a change of judge.
Relator contends that he was entitled to an automatic change of judge. He relies on Acts 1984, P.L. 170 which became effective March 15, 1984. The pertinent section of the statute reads as follows:
Relator asserts that because the statute creates a substantive right to a preemptory change of judge in a criminal case, the granting of such a motion is mandatory upon filing by either the defendant or the prosecution. We do not agree. Despite relator's contrary assertion, the statute conflicts with Ind.R.Cr.P. 12, which requires a showing of cause as a prerequisite for the discretionary granting of a motion for a change of judge.
In a recent case involving a conflict between Ind.R.Cr.P. 12 and the previous statute regarding change of judge in a criminal case, Ind.Code Sec. 35-36-6-1(c), this Court held that the rule prevails over the conflicting statute, and that a change of judge in a criminal case is discretionary rather than mandatory. State ex rel. Gaston v. Gibson Circuit Court, (1984) Ind., 462 N.E.2d 1049 (Hunter, J., dissenting). Although the new statute employs different language, it too conflicts with the trial rule. Our holding in Gaston is controlling in the instant case.
"[T]his Court has the authority to adopt procedural rules governing the conduct of litigation, and these rules take precedent over conflicting statutes." Id. at 1051 (citations omitted). As we found in Gaston, the requirement of a showing of cause is procedural rather than substantive. The legislature creates the right to a change of judge, a right this Court cannot undermine....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Collins v. Sposeep, 91-1965
...statute, however, is without force and effect to the extent it conflicts with Indiana's Criminal Rule 12. State ex rel. Jeffries v. Lawrence Circuit Court, 467 N.E.2d 741 (Ind.1984). Rule 12 requires a showing of bias for entitlement to a change of judge. Lasley v. State, 510 N.E.2d 1340, 1......
-
People v. Williams
...section 114-5(c). See, e.g., State of Arizona v. City Court of Tucson (1986), 150 Ariz. 99, 722 P.2d 267; State ex rel. Jeffries v. Laurence Circuit Court (Ind.1984), 467 N.E.2d 741; Main v. State (Alaska App.1983), 668 P.2d 868; Solberg v. Superior Court (1977), 19 Cal.3d 182, 561 P.2d 114......
-
Humbert v. Smith
...it conflicts with the evidence rule, and the admission of reports is governed by Evid.R. 803(6). See State ex rel. Jeffries v. Lawrence Circuit Court (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 741, 742. In view of our decision, the trial court erred by admitting the results of Humbert's blood test without pr......
-
Hicks v. State
...previous guilty pleas and also that the judge was a party-defendant to a complaint filed by appellant. In State ex rel. Jeffries v. Lawrence Circuit Court (1984), Ind., 467 N.E.2d 741 and State ex rel. Gaston v. Gibson Circuit Court (1984), 462 N.E.2d 1049, this Court ruled that a change of......