Indiana Supreme Court agrees to hear battery case

  • Print
Listen to this story

Subscriber Benefit

As a subscriber you can listen to articles at work, in the car, or while you work out. Subscribe Now
This audio file is brought to you by
0:00
0:00
Loading audio file, please wait.
  • 0.25
  • 0.50
  • 0.75
  • 1.00
  • 1.25
  • 1.50
  • 1.75
  • 2.00
The Indiana Supreme Court hears a case during a 2023 oral argument. From left to right, Geoffrey Slaughter, Mark Massa, Loretta Rush, Derek Molter and Christopher Goff. (Photo from Flickr)

The Indiana Supreme Court granted the transfer of a battery case last week and denied 47 other requests.

The court has agreed to hear the case of Antonio Turner v. State of Indiana, 24S-CR-147, which was affirmed by the Indiana Court of Appeals in December 2023 in a memorandum decision. The court found the state presented sufficient evidence that Antonio Turner did not act in self-defense and was guilty of battery as a Level 5 felony.

The appellate court’s decision has now been vacated and the high court will decide what to do next.

While the high court denied the transfer of 47 other cases, the justices did not agree on all of them.

The justices denied BMI Properties, LLC v. Building Associates, Inc., et al., 23A-PL-988, but Chief Justice Loretta Rush and Justice Geoffrey Slaughter voted to grant the petition.

The appellate court reversed the entry of summary judgment in the defendant’s favor and remanded the case back to the Monroe Circuit Court for further proceedings in December 2023.

Rush and Justice Christopher Goff voted to grant Thaddeus F. Radziwiecki v. Gough, Inc., 22A-SC-2842. In a split memorandum decision, the appellate court affirmed the grant of summary judgment in favor of Gough Inc. on Thaddeus Radziwieki’s small claims action.

Justice Derek Molter voted to grant Thomas D. Stone v. State of Indiana, 23A-CR-625. The appellate court used the Wadle test and found Thomas Stone’s sex crime convictions involved mutually exclusive acts.

The high court recently issued an opinion in March in which it attempted to clarify the use of the Wadle test when it comes to double jeopardy.

Please enable JavaScript to view this content.

{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining
{{ articles_remaining }}
Free {{ article_text }} Remaining Article limit resets on
{{ count_down }}