State v. Jablonski
Decision Date | 20 April 1992 |
Docket Number | No. 37A04-9111-CV-437,37A04-9111-CV-437 |
Citation | 590 N.E.2d 598 |
Parties | STATE of Indiana, Appellant, v. In re the Matter of Stanley JABLONSKI, Appellee. |
Court | Indiana Appellate Court |
Linley E. Pearson, Atty. Gen., Michael Schaefer, Deputy Atty. Gen., Indianapolis, for appellant.
Stanley W. Jablonski, pro se.
After attorney Stanley Jablonski, a public defender, failed three times to appear on behalf of a criminal defendant, the Honorable James E. Letsinger, Judge of the Lake Superior Court, Criminal Division, requested the Lake County Prosecutor to file criminal contempt charges against Jablonski. After completing an investigation of the circumstances, the prosecutor found that Jablonski's failures to appear were due to miscommunication and declined to take any action. Before the prosecutor's investigation was completed, Jablonski filed a petition to take Judge Letsinger's deposition, pursuant to Ind.Trial Rule 27, to perpetuate Judge Letsinger's testimony regarding the circumstances leading to the request for criminal contempt charges. Although no charges had been filed yet, Jablonski sought the deposition so that the Judge could not later claim the passage of time "has deteriorated his memory to the point that he cannot remember facts that are important to petitioner's defense." R. 11. The State moved to dismiss the petition on the basis that the matter was moot because no charges would be filed by the prosecutor.
At the hearing on the State's motion to dismiss and on the merits of Jablonski's petition to depose Judge Letsinger, the special judge appointed to hear the matter denied the motion to dismiss and granted Jablonski's petition. The State appeals, claiming the the action serves no useful purpose and there is no justification for a pre-litigation deposition under the Rule.
We agree with the State and reverse.
T.R. 27 provides a means to perpetuate testimony by taking a deposition in advance of trial. The rule provides:
(A) Before Action.
(1) Petition. A person who desires to perpetuate his own testimony or that of another person regarding any matter that may be cognizable in any court in which the action may be commenced may file a verified petition in any such court of this state.
The petition shall be entitled in the name of the petitioner and shall state facts showing:
(a) that the petitioner expects to be a party to an action cognizable in a court of this or another state;
(b) the subject-matter of the expected action and his interest therein;
(c) the facts which he desires to establish by the proposed testimony and his reasons for desiring to perpetuate it;
(d) the names or a description of the persons he expects will be adverse parties and their addresses so far as known; and
(e) the names and addresses of the persons to be examined and the substance of the testimony which he expects to elicit from each, and shall ask for an order authorizing the petitioner to take the depositions of the person to be examined named in the petition, for the purpose of perpetuating their testimony.
* * * * * *
(3) Order and Examination. If the court is satisfied that the perpetuation of the testimony may prevent a failure or delay of justice, it shall make an order designating or describing the person whose depositions may be taken ...
(Emphasis added.)
The Civil Code Study Commission comments to the rule suggest that the affiant only has to show that the proposed testimony will establish relevant facts which he has reason for perpetuating. 2 West, HARVEY, INDIANA PRACTICE (1987) at 701. The only Indiana case 1 on record that involves T.R. 27, Sowers v. LaPorte Superior Court II (1991), Ind.App., 577 N.E.2d 250, does not address the issue in the instant case.
In Sowers, an inmate at Westville Correctional Facility, Lawrence Sowers (Sowers), appealed a trial court's denial of his T.R. 27(A) motion to perpetuate testimony in anticipation of a Tort Claims Act lawsuit which Sowers intended to file. Sowers wished to perpetuate the testimony of witnesses that he intended to call, but whom he feared would not be available when he ultimately filed his suit. Id. at 253. This court agreed with the trial court, noting that the ninety (90) day period that Sowers was required to wait prior to filing suit did not sufficiently demonstrate a danger of lost evidence. Id. The court concluded that it "did not believe a trial court should grant such a motion on the mere possibility that witnesses may be transferred or fired...." Id.
Federal courts have found that a failure of the petition to contain all the required elements is sufficient to justify denial. Thus, under the federal version of the rule: 2
Both the federal courts and our Indiana courts have held that the trial court has broad discretion in determining whether to permit depositions to be taken. Id., at 702, citing Thomas v. Farr (1965), 137 Ind.App. 269, 207 N.E.2d 650; State ex rel Rooney et al. v. Lake Circuit Court (1957), 236 Ind. 345, 140 N.E.2d 217 ( ); De Wagenknecht v. Stinnes (D.C.Cir.1957), 250 F.2d 414 ( ). Under the federal rule, a court may grant an order to take the deposition if it is satisfied that a failure or a delay of justice may thereby be prevented. De Wagenknecht, supra.
When this court reviews a discretionary decision of the trial court, we will reverse only when the decision is an erroneous conclusion and judgment, one clearly against the logic and effect of the facts and circumstances before the court or the reasonable, probable and actual deductions to be drawn therefrom. Dahnke v. Dahnke (1989), Ind.App., 535 N.E.2d 172; Matter of Trust of Loeb (1986), Ind.App., 492 N.E.2d 40. That is, we will reverse only when the record contains no facts or inferences supporting the judgment. National Advertising Co. v. Wilson Auto Parts, Inc. (1991), Ind.App., 569 N.E.2d 997.
Here the facts are undisputed. Jablonski had been appointed by Court Commissioner Page on July 5, 1990, to represent criminal defendant, Richard S. Hummer, who was scheduled for hearing in Judge Letsinger's court on July 11, 1990. When Jablonski failed to appear, the hearing was reset for July 27, and again for August 3, 1990. Jablonski failed to appear for both hearings. On March 28, 1991, the Lake County Prosecuting Attorney completed his investigation and declined to file the requested contempt citation, making the following findings:
Jablonski alleged in his petition that Letsinger requested charges of indirect contempt to be filed against him and an investigation was being conducted. He then alleged:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
D.R. Horton, Inc. v. Ferrari (Ex parte Ferrari)
...115 Ill.App.3d 48, 450 N.E.2d 411, 70 Ill.Dec. 938 (1983) (discussing Rule 217, Ill. Sup.Ct. R. Civ. P. Trial Ct.); State v. Jablonski, 590 N.E.2d 598 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) (discussing Rule 27, Ind. R. Trial P.); Wiles v. Myerly, 210 N.W.2d 619 (Iowa 1973) (discussing Rule 1.721 –1.729, Iowa R.......
-
Contempt Hearing of Nasser, In re
... ... Subsequently, the State, by its prosecuting attorney, filed a motion to amend the charge to include an alternative count alleging direct contempt and the motion was granted ... 2 For an example of one procedure employed for finding an attorney in contempt of court, see In re the Matter of Stanley Jablonski (1992), Ind.App. 590 N.E.2d 598. While the issue presented in Jablonski is not relevant here, the factual scenario is similar and instructive ... ...
-
U.S. Fidelity & Guar. v. Hartson-Kennedy, 49A02-0604-CV-324.
...court's decision to grant or deny a petition to perpetuate testimony under an abuse of discretion standard. See State v. Jablonski, 590 N.E.2d 598, 600 (Ind.Ct.App.1992). When this court reviews a discretionary decision of the trial court, we will reverse only when the decision is an errone......
-
Cleveland Range, LLC v. Lincoln Fort Wayne Assocs., LLC
...granted only when “there is evidence supporting a petitioner's expectations to be a party to a suit.” Id. (quoting State v. Jablonski, 590 N.E.2d 598, 602 (Ind.Ct.App.1992) ). In the case before us there is ample evidence the petitioner, Lincoln, could expect to be a party to a lawsuit.[13]......