Page 1

Issue 21.3 MAY/JUN 2012


PROFILE OF THE INDIANA SUPREME COURT ARTICLES Profile of the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure 2 The New Appellate Rule 9 and Initiation of an Appeal


Access to Justice Workshop


2012 Legislative Review


Devestating Tornado Hits Southern Indiana & Thirty-Five Lawyers Raise the Bar 14 Who’s Overseeing the Overseers? A Report on the State of Adult Guardianship in Indiana 16 How a Guardianship Registry Benefits the Citizens of Indiana


Olympic Medalist Frank Shorter Delivered Moving Keynote Address at the 2012 Indiana Probation Officers Annual Conference 20 Using a Signature Stamp: When and How 21


Hon. Mary R. Harper & Hon. David L. Chidester



When the Honorable Judge Has Been Served... Send it to me! 26

2 MAY/JUN 2012


Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure For more than forty years,

the Indiana Supreme Court has been aided in promulgating court rules by a select group of leading practitioners, judges and professors. The present organization of the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure (Rules Committee) began on November 13, 1979, when Indiana Trial Rule 80 was revised. The predecessor to the present committee was the Advisory Committee on Revision of Rules of Procedure and Practice which had existed since January 1, 1970. Few records from those early days remain. The revised rule retained several members of the Advisory Committee as members of the initial Rules Committee. Mr. Charles W. Hoodenpyl, Jr. served as Chair and Dean William F. Harvey served as Vice-Chair of the new Rules Committee. Other members carried over were the Honorable Henry A. Pictor, Judge of the Ripley Circuit Court, the Honorable Patrick D. Sullivan, Judge of the Indiana Court of Appeals and Mr. Michael S. Fischer. New members to the Committee were Mr. Jerry Belknap and Mr. F. Boyd Hovde. The Committee dealt with a wide range of topics that first year, but was predominately occupied with changes to the appellate and discovery rules; issues that today’s Rules Committee still addresses. The Committee’s structure, duties and activities are spelled out in Trial Rule 80. The membership of the Committee represents a diverse cross section of the legal community. By rule one member must be a judge of the Court of Appeals and one must be a judge of a trial court

of general jurisdiction. By tradition, at least one member is typically from each of the following categories: a prosecuting attorney, a criminal defense attorney, a civil plaintiff ’s attorney, a civil defense attorney, and a member from the world of academia. In addition to coming from different legal practices the members come from different parts of the state. In addition to working with the rules of practice and procedure, the Supreme Court has directed the Rules Committee to conduct a contiguous study of the Indiana Rules of Evidence and submit to the Court from time to time recommendations about those rules. (Ev.R. 1101) Presently, the Committee is conducting a comparison between the Indiana Rules of Evidence and the newly adopted Federal Rules of Evidence with the goal of publishing for comment proposed amendments that would comport the Indiana Rules of Evidence with the Federal Rules when appropriate. Today, the Committee consists of Mr. Theodore F. Smith, Jr., Chair; Ms. Jessie A. Cook, Vice Chair; the Honorable L. Mark Bailey; Mr. Charles L. Berger; Professor Jeffrey O. Cooper; the Honorable Jeffery J. Dywan; Mr. Keith A. Henderson; Ms. Maggie L. Smith; and Mr. Christopher G. Scanlon. Lilia G. Judson, Executive Director of the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration serves as the Committee’s Executive Secretary and Tom Carusillo, the Division’s Director of Trial Court Services, serves as attorney for the committee. Continued on page 4


Any attempt to discuss the changes to Appellate Rule 9 with a trial court judge usually results in a blank stare or lengthy pause in a phone conversation. That reaction is not surprising given that once a judge signs off on a final order of judgment, the case moves to a different arena, and the judge moves on to other cases demanding attention at the trial court level. However, the changes have raised some concerns as to what trial court judges need to know about the new rule and how trial court judges can assist in the transition. The amendments to Rule 9 were effective January 1, 2012. The most significant change to appellate practice is contained in Rule 9(A) that now requires the notice of appeal to be filed with the Clerk of the Indiana Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court instead of the trial court clerk. The 30-day deadline after entry of final judgment remains the same. The rule contains a two-year grace period to allow appellate attorneys to adjust to the rule. Until January 1, 2014, a notice of appeal filed with the trial court clerk will be deemed in compliance. After the grace period, a notice of appeal filed with the trial court clerk will forfeit any right of appeal. Appellate Court Judge Terry Crone explained that the Court decided on the two-year period out of an abundance of caution to protect the rights of litigants, particularly criminal defendants, to

file appeals. “We felt that two years was a reasonable amount of time for the knowledge of the new filing requirement to percolate to those attorneys who may not do much appellate work,” Judge Crone explained. Other changes to Rule 9 of interest to trial judges include: • abolishing the case summary filing requirement in favor of an expanded notice of appeal which includes many of the same elements • requiring the appellant to enter into an agreement with the court reporter preparing the transcript within 30 days of filing the Notice of Appeal • requiring the Notice of Appeal be served on the trial court judge, court reporter and trial court clerk While the 30-day period for filing notice of appeal has not changed, the additional information required as part of the notice has some attorneys, particularly criminal defense attorneys, concerned that notice will not be provided to appellate counsel in time

to gather the information necessary to file within the deadline. This issue does not arise in those cases where trial counsel continue as appellate counsel, but the more likely scenario is that the trial attorney, especially a public defender, will be replaced for the appeal. Attorneys and judges contributed to the following suggestions as to ways trial judges can help increase awareness of the new rule and improve communication: • When giving the advisement about the right to appeal within 30 days, add that the Notice of Appeal must be filed with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court and refer to Rule 9’s new filing requirements. • Make sure the court reporter and clerk know that preparing and mailing the order appointing new counsel is a priority. Some court reporters already notify appointed counsel Continued on next page


MAY/JUN 2012 3


Continued from previous page

Continued from page 2

informally by phone call or email to alert the attorney that the appointment has been made and the order will be coming. State Public Defender Stephen T. Owens said a phone call to his office would also be appreciated to jump-start the search for an attorney to handle the appeal. • Consider asking trial counsel to file the notice of appeal and then withdraw from the case. This suggestion is particularly pertinent to those cases where the State Public Defender is involved because of the built-in delay in getting appellate counsel appointed. While Owens said the delay is usually only a few days, he endorsed the idea of trial counsel filing the Notice of Appeal to give the appellate attorney more time to become familiar with the case. • The time for filing the transcript by the court reporter remains at 90 days from the filing of the Notice of Appeal. While a trial court judge may not be directly concerned with the appellate process (other than wondering if the judgment will be affirmed), a trial court judge can certainly help the implementation of Rule 9 by increasing awareness of the rule changes with the local bar and court staff. If this article inspires additional suggestions as to how trial court judges can improve the transition to filing a Notice of Appeal with the Clerk of the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals and Tax Court, all the better.

4 MAY/JUN 2012


Theodore F. Smith, Jr., received his undergraduate and law degrees from the University of Notre Dame. He has been a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure since 2003. He is a member of the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association and has served as its President. He is also a member of the Indiana State Bar Association and has served on its Board of Managers; and a member of the National Organization of Social Security Claimant’s Representatives. He was listed in Best Lawyers in America (20052012) and named in Indiana Super Lawyers 2004-06 and 2009-2012. Mr. Smith has served as faculty member in numerous continuing legal education seminars.

Jessie A. Cook maintains a solo practice in Terre Haute where she represents individuals accused of major felonies and capital offenses in state and federal courts. She graduated from the Indiana University Maurer School of Law and has served for the past 20 years as an adjunct professor of trial advocacy at both the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law in Indianapolis and the Maurer School of Law in Bloomington. She is a Fellow of the American College of Trial Lawyers and serves on the College’s Access to Justice and Indiana State Committees; a Master Fellow and former board member of the Indiana

Bar Foundation; a member of the ISBA’s Board of Governors; a council member of the ISBA’s Criminal Justice Section; and is a member of the ACLU, the NLG and NACDL.

The Honorable Lloyd Mark Bailey has served continuously since his appointment to the Indiana Court of Appeals in 1998. Judge Bailey earned a B.A. from the University of Indianapolis, a J.D. from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, and an M.B.A. from Indiana Wesleyan University. He was a practicing attorney and served as an administrative law judge before being elected judge of the Decatur County Court in 1991. From 1992 until his appointment to the Court of Appeals, he served as judge of the Decatur Superior Court. Judge Bailey helped organize the state’s pro bono program and served as the first chairperson of the Indiana Pro Bono Commission and was awarded the Pro Bono Publico and Randall Shepard Awards. In 2006, he was designated Distinguished Jurist in Residence at Stetson University College of Law and, in 2009, he was elected as an ASTAR Science and Technology Fellow. He also serves on the Board of Managers of the Indiana Judges Association, on the Council of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Appellate Practice Section, and on the Board of the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law Alumni Association. Judge Bailey is also an adjunct professor at the University of Indianapolis.

Photo Lindsey Borschel.


Left to right: Keith Henderson; Jessie Cook; Prof. Jeffrey Cooper; Maggie Smith; Theodore Smith, Jr.; Hon. L. Mark Bailey; Hon. Jeffrey Dywan; Tom Carusillo. Not pictured: Charles Berger; Chris Scanlon; and committee Executive Secretary Lilia Judson.

Charles L. Berger graduated from the University of Evansville and received his law degree from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. After graduating he returned to Evansville and practiced law with his father, Sydney Berger, and has continued his father’s tradition of representing the working people in the Evansville area. His primary areas of practice are personal injury law, labor law, and civil litigation. He has served on committees and boards in the Indiana Trial Lawyers Association, American Board of Trial Advocates, Association of Trial Lawyers of America, Indiana Bar Foundation, American Inns of Court Foundation and the Indiana Judicial Nominating and Qualification Commission. Charlie and his family have served the Evansville community by establishing the Berger Award at the University of Evansville in memory of his parents, Sadelle and Sydney Berger, as well as the Sydney and Sadelle Berger Faculty Award at the University of Southern Indiana.

Jeffrey O. Cooper is an associate professor at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, where he has taught since 1996. Professor Cooper teaches Civil Procedure, Evidence, Federal Courts, and Legislation and writes in the areas of statutory interpretation, civil procedure, and the decision-making processes of appellate courts. He has published in the Ohio State Law Journal, the Tulane Law Review, and the Brooklyn Law Review, among other journals. Prior to joining the faculty at Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, Professor Cooper clerked for the Honorable Louis H. Pollak of the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania and for the Honorable Guido Calabresi of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. He also practiced law with the Washington, D.C. firm of Covington & Burling. He received his A.B. degree from Harvard University and his J.D. degree from the University of Pennsylvania Law School.

The Honorable Jeffery J. Dywan has been a Judge of the Lake County Superior Court in Lake County serving in the court’s Civil Division since his appointment to the bench in 1991. He served as Chief Judge of the Superior Court from 1998 to 2000. Judge Dywan is a member of the Indiana Supreme Court’s Judicial Technology and Automation Committee. He was the 1st District representative on the Board of Directors of the Indiana Judicial Conference and he is a former member and chairman of the Indiana Judges Association Civil Instructions Committee. He also served as a member of the Supreme Court’s Alternate Dispute Resolution Committee. He is the author of An Evaluation of the Effect of CourtOrdered Mediation and Proactive Case Management on the Pace of Civil Tort Litigation in Lake County, Indiana (2003 J.Disp.Resol. 239), he is a contributing author to Indiana Pattern Jury Instructions-Civil (Second Edition, Revised, Ind. Judges Continued on next page


MAY/JUN 2012 5

RULES COMMITTEE Continued from previous page

Assoc. 2001), and he is a contributing author to Indiana Evidence Workshop Manual, Professional Education Systems Institute, (1993 2006). Judge Dywan was the recipient of the Civility Award presented in 2006 by the Litigation Section of the Indiana State Bar Association. Before taking the bench, Judge Dywan worked in the private practice of law in Lake County, Indiana for 17 years. During that time he also worked as a deputy prosecuting attorney, a public defender, and taught legal courses at Calumet College and Indiana Vocational Technical College. Judge Dywan is a graduate of Purdue University (BS), Valparaiso University School of Law (JD) and The University of Nevada-Reno (MJS).

Keith A. Henderson is the Floyd County Prosecutor and a former State Trooper who served as First Sergeant and Legal Adviser for the Indiana State Police. He was appointed as the Crawford County Prosecutor in 1998 and elected to a full term the following November. In 2002, Mr. Henderson was elected to the Office of the Floyd County Prosecutor, and he has served continuously since then having won re-election in 2006 and 2010. He is a member of the Board of Directors for the Indiana Prosecuting Attorney’s Council, a past Chairman, and currently serves as the Chairman of its Ethics Committee. In December 2010, Mr. Hen6 MAY/JUN 2012


derson was selected by his peers as the Indiana representative to the National District Attorneys Association (NDAA) to represent the interests of Indiana prosecutors. Mr. Henderson received a B.A. in Criminal Justice from Valparaiso University and a J.D. from the Louis D. Brandeis School of Law at the University of Louisville.

Maggie L. Smith practices law in Indianapolis as Counsel for the law firm Frost Brown Todd in the appellate and litigation practice areas. She has been involved in hundreds of appeals, and has represented businesses, individuals, and groups in all types of appellate proceeding at every level of the state and federal appellate courts, and also has significant experience representing amicus curiae parties before Indiana’s appellate courts. Prior to entering private practice, she served as a judicial law clerk with the Indiana Supreme Court and was an Adjunct Professor of Law at Indiana University, teaching legal writing and reasoning and appellate advocacy. Maggie has been actively involved in drafting the Indiana Appellate Rules, is a leader in the state and national appellate practice communities, and is a frequent presenter on appellate topics. She is involved in various bar association committees at the state and local level. She is also active in numerous civic and charitable organizations. She earned her B. A. degree at the University of Arizona and her J.D. degree from the University of Arizona, James E. Rogers College of Law.

Chris Scanlon practices law at the firm of Faegre Baker Daniels LLP in its Indianapolis office. He concentrates his practice in the area of business and commercial litigation. He is a member of that firm’s Management Board and has served as chair of the firm’s litigation section. Mr. Scanlon serves on the U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Local Rules Committee and the Committee on Rules and Practice of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals. He is First Vice President of the Seventh Circuit Bar Association and will be its President for the year 2012-2013. Mr. Scanlon is a graduate of Indiana University and the Indiana University Maurer School of Law. Throughout the year the Committee receives proposed rule amendments from sources as varied as the Indiana Supreme Court, the State Bar Association, judges, attorneys, and private citizens. The Committee studies these requests and determines if proposing a change is appropriate. For relatively straightforward matters this process might only take a couple of months. For more complex issues the process may take years. It is not unusual for a proposal to go through several drafts before the Committee settles on one to publish for public comment. Much work and study occurs before the Committee recommends a change to the Court. But also, the committee often undertakes on its own to study and review rules, such as the attorney surrogate rule, rules dealing with e-discovery and the rules of evidence. Frequently, the Committee is asked, “When do I have to have a proposal to the Committee to have it considered by the Supreme Court?” The answer to this question is not clear cut. The best answer is: “The sooner the better.” For

an amendment to be effective January 1, 2014, it should be before the Committee by March 2012. However, if a proposed amendment is straightforward, simple and non-controversial getting it to the Committee by September 2012 may be sufficient for an effective date of January 1, 2014. Experience shows though that most proposed amendments are rarely simple even if they appear that way because of their interaction with other rules. To be safe, proposed amendments should be to the Committee not later than March, or roughly twenty-one months before the effective date. Sometimes, emergencies arise that make this timeline untenable and the Committee does its best to accommodate such situations. The reason for the length of time it takes a proposed amendment to become a rule is the process that occurs. After review and study, the Committee publishes for public comment those amendments that the Committee plans on recommending to the Court. They are published for comment on the Supreme Court’s website for a period of 60 days. The Committee reviews the comments and, in some cases, makes additional changes to a proposed amendment. Due to this process, the Committee must finish its initial work on a proposed amendment usually no later than October so that the proposal can be transmitted to the Court in May. The Committee

sends the proposals being recommended, along with the comments, to the Supreme Court for its consideration.

ing and proposing changes to the new Code of Professional Conduct put forth by the American Bar Association.

The Supreme Court generally begins its consideration of proposed amendments that will become effective January 1, in May or June of the preceding year. The Court normally issues Orders the September before the effective date. Not all proposals the Committee recommends to the Court are approved. The Court may reject some in their entirety, while others the Court may further modify. A chart summarizing a proposed rule’s typical path through the process follows:

Not all of the Committee’s work results in changes. For example, the Committee debated for months a proposal to have the Supreme Court certify Paralegals. Ultimately, a split Committee presented a modified recommendation to register paralegals, which the Court did not accept. Sometimes the Committee’s efforts generate no proposal for change. The Committee invested a substantial amount of time wrestling with a definition for the “unauthorized practice of law”, only to conclude that no change to the status quo should be made.

Proposed amendment before Rules Committee

March 2012

Publication of proposed amendments

December 2012

Recommendations to the Supreme Court

May 2013

Supreme Court Order adopting amendments

September 2013

Effective date of amendments

January 1, 2014

In the recent past the Committee has worked on a wide variety of rules projects. Some were small, some were large. Among the larger projects, the Committee reviewed and made recommendations for changes to the Appellate Rules and Evidence Rules proposed by the State Bar Association. The Committee also invested a good deal of time review-

Notable changes to the Rules arising from the Committee’s work include the Attorney Surrogate Rule (Admission and Discipline Rule 23 § 27), E-discovery rules (Trial Rules 26, 34 and 37), and interlocutory appeals of the grant or denial of class actions (Appellate Rule 14). The Committee also made recommendations to the Court that resulted in the adoption of the custodial interrogation rule (Evidence Rule 617) and procedures for handling cases involving families and households (Trial Rule 81.1). Currently, the Committee is taking on a project to review the Rules of Evidence in light of the recently passed restyled federal rules of evidence.

For those wishing to submit a proposed amendment for consideration by the Rules Committee, a form has been developed to facilitate the Committee’s review. It should accompany all requests sent to the Committee and can be found at


MAY/JUN 2012 7

Access to Justice Workshop “Because we’re here, I hope one less person is going to be a victim of domestic violence, one less person is going to be denied their benefits, one less person is going to feel shut out of the legal system that they thought was a promise to all of us.” This was expressed by Justice Nathan Hecht of the Texas Supreme Court during the Access to Justice Workshop. The workshop was held on March 22nd and 23rd at the Statehouse and in the conference rooms of Barnes & Thornburg LLP. About 65 people participated in the workshop, which consisted of keynote speeches, panel discussions, and smallgroup conversations about the viability of creating an Access to Justice Commission in Indiana. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Steven David delivered the opening and closing remarks.

Texas commission is considered by most observers to be one of the most dynamic and successful. Judge Singleton, who is from Indiana, has helped with establishing a successful commission in a state that shares similarities with Indiana. Participants were drawn from a broad range of stakeholders including judges, members of the private bar, social service providers, librarians, people who are eligible to receive legal services, civil legal aid providers, advocates for the victims of domestic violence, and representatives of the physically challenged.

Speakers at the workshop were individuals with broad knowledge and experience in the formation of Access to Justice Commissions, and included Justice Hecht of the Texas Access to Justice Commission, Honorable Sarah Singleton of the New Mexico Access to Justice Commission, and Karen Lash, senior counsel of Access to Justice at the U.S. Department of Justice. Justice Hecht is a frequent speaker at access to justice workshops around the country, and the

The idea for an Access to Justice Commission grew out of a Legal Needs Study that was conducted in 2007 and followed by a pro bono conclave in 2008. Both were examining the variety of civil legal needs facing low-income Indiana residents and the best way to respond to those needs. In 2009, a group of legal services providers and other stakeholders asked the Indiana Supreme Court to create an Access to Justice Commission. A working group was formed,

8 MAY/JUN 2012


consisting of representatives from the Indiana Pro Bono Commission, the Indiana Supreme Court Self-Represented Litigant Committee, the ISBA Pro Bono Committee, the Indiana Bar Foundation Board of Directors, the Pro Bono Conclave Working Group, and the Indiana Legal Service Board of Directors. This group submitted a refined proposal on April 8, 2010 that revised Indiana Rule of Professional Conduct 6.6 to address the creation of an Access to Justice Commission. The proposal received many comments, from which those involved concluded that there was a need for more discussion on the desirability of an Access to Justice Commission in Indiana and on the structure and function of such a commission. On August 29, 2011, then Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard issued a letter to the working group concluding that further dialogue is needed regarding ways to improve delivery of legal services to the poor and the development of a long-term plan for doing so, as well as

Photo Elana Salzman.


Left to right: Judge Sarah Singleton (New Mexico), Karen Lash (Department of Justice), Justice Nathan Hecht (Texas), and Professor Amy Applegate (Michael Maurer School of Law).

the aims, structure, and viability of a possible access to justice commission in Indiana. He directed the working group to hold an education and discussion workshop on these issues, bringing in outside speakers to educate stakeholders on Access to Justice Commissions in other states and conduct discussion on the possibility of establishing one in Indiana. His letter recommended that this workshop be followed up with a smaller task force to establish a detailed plan and implementation strategy. State Court Administration staff reached out to the various members of the working group who put together the initial proposal, as well as those who commented on the proposal, to work on the planning of this event. An effort was made to be as inclusive as possible of all

interested parties. The planning group consulted with Robert Echols, the Access to Justice Project Consultant for the American Bar Association, for advice on speakers and organization of the workshop. Mr. Echols provided the group with information about access to justice workshops in states similar to Indiana, and on which outside speakers would be most useful to the efforts. After listening to success stories and talking about Indiana’s challenges, participants in the workshop largely felt that an Access to Justice Commission would be good for Indiana and instrumental in the goal of helping people gain better access to representation and to the courts. Ms. Lash exhorted the group to “not let perfection be the enemy of the good”, while Judge Singleton demonstrated

how the development of an Access to Justice Commission had resulted in dramatic increases in funding for indigent representation in her state. A task force has been formed to begin drafting and refining possible proposals for the creation of a commission, with input from all stakeholders at two scheduled followup meetings. The task force consists of a small group of workshop participants and is headed by Allen County Superior Court Judge David Avery. The intent is to bring a proposal for the creation of a commission to the Indiana Supreme Court by early summer.

For questions or more information about the Access to Justice Workshop, please contact Elana Salzman, Staff Attorney, at or (317) 233-3017. courttimes

MAY/JUN 2012 9





Legislative Review

[Editor’s Note: This report is a condensed version of the full report prepared by the Indiana Judicial Center.]



S.E.A. 156, P.L. 41-2012 This law establishes a new procedure for partitioning real and personal property that (1) requires a court to refer the matter to mediation and (2) requires the court to order that the property be sold using a method the parties agree upon, or, if the parties are not able to reach an agreement, at auction.

Security Deposits and Motor Vehicle Laws S.E.A. 271, P.L. 47-2012

This law prohibits a landlord from requiring a lien on a motor vehicle that is owned by a tenant as a security deposit or to secure the payment of rent and also provides that, if a landlord accepts

a lien on a motor vehicle as a security deposit, the landlord must file or record the lien and comply with requirements concerning security deposits to enforce the lien.

Mortgages and Liens on Real Property S.E.A. 298, P.L. 130-2012

The statute changes the applicable expiration periods for mortgage and vendor’s liens. It also provides that at any time after a judgment and decree of sale is entered in an action to foreclose a mortgage on an interest in real property in Indiana, an interested person or an omitted party may bring a civil action concerning an omitted party’s interest in the property.

Eminent Domain Filing Deadlines S.E.A. 329, P.L. 50-2012

A party to an eminent domain action aggrieved by the assessment of benefits or damages in a report of the appraisers filed with a court may file written exceptions to the assessment in the office of the circuit court clerk after the report of the appraisers is filed with the court not later than 45 days after the date the circuit court mails the report.

Criminal History and Sentencing—Infractions H.E.A. 1033, P.L. 69-2012

The court shall, on its own initiative, order the clerk not to disclose infraction records to a noncriminal justice organization or an individual if the infraction defendant (1) was not prosecuted or if the complaint

The Indiana Judicial Center has prepared a legislative report that contains summaries of select bills of interest passed in the 2012 session and can be can be found at The entire text of any law, as well as any other legislative action, is available at

10 MAY/JUN 2012


was dismissed; (2) was acquitted of the infraction; or (3) was adjudged to have committed the infraction but the judgment was vacated. The law contains additional provisions that regulate the proceedings. Five (5) years after the date a person satisfies a judgment imposed on a person for the violation of an infraction, the clerk of the court shall prohibit the disclosure of information related to the infraction to a noncriminal justice organization or an individual.

Agricultural Operations— Restitution for Methamphetamine and Marijuana H.E.A. 1091, P.L. 73-2012

A court must order a person who manufactures methamphetamine or marijuana on property owned by another to pay certain liquidated damages as restitution to the property owner.

Finding of Abandonment for Mortgaged Property H.E.A. 1238, P.L. 102-2012

This law provides a procedure by which the court having jurisdiction over an existing mortgage foreclosure action may find that the mortgaged property is abandoned. It specifies rights for parties affected by the procedure.



S.E.A. 1, P.L. 161-2012 This law amends existing statutes concerning what circumstances must be present to justify the use of reasonable force against a public servant. It amends existing law to specify that a person is not justified in using deadly

force against a public servant whom the person knows or reasonably should know is a public servant unless (1) the person reasonably believes that the public servant is (a) acting unlawfully or (b) not engaged in the execution of the public servant’s official duties and (2) the force is reasonably necessary to prevent serious bodily injury to the person or a third person.

Human Trafficking S.E.A. 4, P.L. 1-2012

This law amends the offense of promoting human trafficking by adding the element that the perpetrator’s promotion be by “force, threat of force, or fraud” and adds “participating in sexual conduct” as one of the activities the victim is coerced to do. It also creates a new crime of human trafficking and expands the reach of the existing statute governing that offense.

Public Intoxication S.E.A. 97, P.L. 117-2012

This statute amends the offense of public intoxication to provide that one may not be convicted of that offense unless he (1) endangers his life; (2) endangers the life of another person; (3) breaches the peace or is in imminent danger of breaching the peace; or (4) harasses, annoys, or alarms another person. It prohibits a person from maintaining an action against a law enforcement officer based on the officer’s failure to enforce certain laws concerning public intoxication offenses.

Lab Technician Testimony in Criminal Cases S.E.A. 246, P.L. 44-2012

This new penal code chapter requires a prosecuting attorney who intends to introduce a laboratory report into evidence at a criminal trial to file a notice of intent at least 20 days before trial, and requires a defendant who wishes to cross-examine the technician who prepared the laboratory report to file a pretrial demand for cross-examination not later than 10 days after receiving the notice from the prosecutor. It provides penalties for the failure to comply.

Immunity for Certain Alcohol Offenses S.E.A. 274, P.L. 93-2012

A law enforcement officer may not take a person into custody for the crime of public intoxication or minor possession, consumption, or transportation of an alcoholic beverage if the officer, after making a reasonable determination and considering the facts and surrounding circumstances, reasonably believes that the person Continued on next page


MAY/JUN 2012 11

Continued from previous page

Synthetic Drugs

H.E.A. 1196, P.L. 78-2012 needed emergency medical assistance and meets other requirements. A person meeting the requirements is immune from criminal prosecution for public intoxication or minor possession, consumption or transportation of an alcoholic beverage.

Criminal History and Sentencing— Converting D Felony to A Misdemeanor H.E.A. 1033, P.L. 69-2012

A court may convert a Class D felony conviction to a Class A misdemeanor conviction under certain specified conditions. This statute provides that, if a person whose felony conviction was converted is convicted of a felony within five years after the conversion, then a prosecuting attorney may petition a court to convert the person’s Class A misdemeanor conviction back to a Class D felony conviction.

Sexual Offenders

H.E.A. 1080, P.L. 72-2012 This law amends existing statutes to define as a sex offender a service provider who commits sexual misconduct with a child who is subject to lawful detention. It also amends the offense of felony sexual battery and creates a defense to the offense of recruiting, harboring, or transporting a child less than 16 years of age with the intent of inducing him or her to participate in sexual conduct.

12 MAY/JUN 2012


This statute changes the term “synthetic cannabinoid” to “synthetic drug” in certain statutes governing marijuana and amends controlled substance statutes to add additional chemical compounds to the definition of synthetic drugs as well as expands the definition of synthetic drugs to include certain chemical compounds that are structurally related to synthetic drugs.

Various Corrections Matters

H.E.A. 1200, P.L. 147-2012 A sentencing court must inform the Department of Correction (DOC) that a person sentenced is a credit restricted felon. The court must also state certain information in its sentencing order and abstract of judgment, which is to be completed in an electronic format approved by the DOC and the Division of State Court Administration. The court must include in the abstract of judgment (1) each offense the person is convicted of, (2) the sentence received by the person, and (3) whether the person is a credit restricted felon. The statute requires the Judicial Conference to adopt rules concerning swift and certain sanctions that a probation officer may use in supervising persons on probation and provides procedures for sanctions to be imposed by probation officers. It further provides for reductions of credit time earned by certain offenders and for probationers to be responsible for certain costs. Please note that the Indiana Supreme Court incorporated the requirement for the completion of an electronic abstract of judgment into Criminal Rule 15.2 and extended the requirement to all felony convictions, not just those in which the defendant is sentenced to the DOC.


Duty to Support a Child S.E.A. 18, P.L. 111-2012

The duty to support a child, which does not include support for educational needs, ceases when a child becomes 19 years of age with certain statutory exceptions recognized. The Indiana Judicial Center has released an advisory memorandum that discusses the legal issues relevant to reducing the age of emancipation to 19 years.


S.E.A. 32, P.L. 115-2012 A minor who has not been adjudicated an incapacitated person and the minor’s guardian may jointly petition the court to extend the guardianship beyond the date the minor attains 18 years of age. The court may extend the guardianship until age 22 if it is in the best interests of the protected person.

Study of Termination of Parental Rights in Rape Cases S.E.A. 190, P.L. 156-2012

The legislative council is urged to assign to the Indiana Child Custody and Support Advisory Committee the task of studying the termination of parenting rights of an individual with a child who was conceived by an act of rape by that individual.

Record of Marriage S.E.A. 249, P.L. 2012

A clerk of a circuit court may forward a record of marriage to the State Department of Health in a paper or an electronic form, but, if forwarded electronically, the record need not be forwarded in paper form.

Education concerning Child Abuse


H.E.A. 267, P.L. 46-2012

This statute requires the DOE and DCS to develop educational materials for schools using evidence based models to teach children about reporting child abuse.

Department of Child Services S.E.A. 286, P.L. 48-2012

This law makes numerous changes in child services laws including the responsibilities of DCS and the courts. It provides that a court may appoint a court appointed special advocate or a guardian ad litem only if the person has training appropriate for that role, including training in (1) the identification and treatment of child abuse and neglect, and (2) early childhood, child, and adolescent development. The Division of State Court Administration is currently developing a training curriculum to meet the requirements of the law.

Military Custody and Parenting Time H.E.A. 1065, P.L. 55-2012

Upon motion by a parent who has received military deployment or temporary duty orders, a court must hold an expedited hearing to determine or modify custody or parenting time and allow the parent to present evidence by certain electronic means under certain circumstances. This law permits a court to delegate all or a portion of the parent’s parenting time while deployed if doing so is in the best interests of the child.

Immediate Detention Orders S.E.A. 176, P.L. 62-2012

Allen Circuit Court S.E.A. 152, P.L. 39-2012

This statute converts the Allen Circuit Court hearing officer to a magistrate on July 1, 2013.

Pro Bono Legal Services Filing Fee H.E.A. 1049, P.L. 136-2012

A court may order an individual to be transported to an appropriate facility (excluding a state institution) for a preliminary medical and psychological evaluation if the court has reasonable grounds to believe that the individual (1) has a mental illness, (2) is dangerous, and (3) is in immediate need of hospitalization and treatment.

Among other things, this law imposes, until July 1, 2017, a pro bono legal services fee of $1.00 on parties who file certain civil actions that is to be transferred to the Indiana Bar Foundation, where it is to be used to assist or establish approved pro bono legal services programs.

Inheritance Tax

Johnson Superior Court and Wabash City Court

H.E.A. 1258, P.L. 149-2012

H.E.A. 1092, P.L. 74-2012

This law adds a fourth judge to the Johnson Superior Court as of January 1, 2015 and provides that the Wabash City Court has concurrent jurisdiction with the Wabash Circuit Court in civil cases in which the amount in controversy does not exceed $1,500.00.

S.E.A. 293, P.L. 157-2012 This law, among other inheritance tax changes, phases out the inheritance tax over a 9 year period beginning in 2013.

Various Estate Administration Matters This law makes numerous changes in matters involving estate administration, including taxes on transfers to various entities, probate of foreign wills, fees of a surrogate attorney, powers of a standby guardian, amendments of trusts, and amendments regarding a personality’s rights of publicity.


Power of Attorney and Attorney In Fact S.E.A. 157, P.L. 42-2012

A copy of a power of attorney has the same force and effect as the original if the grantor of the power certifies that the copy is true and correct. A child of the principal may request an accounting with respect to transactions entered into by an attorney in fact.


MAY/JUN 2012 13



Thirty-Five Lawyers Raise the Bar

The drive home from Indianapolis that Friday seemed uneventful and was one I had taken many times. I passed the Henryville Exit on I-65 around 2:15 P.M. on March 2, 2012. The skies were gray but not ominous. I was listening to a commercial/free radio station and had no clue of the looming dangerous weather conditions. In just a few hours violent tornados would cause enormous damage to that little town and the surrounding areas. This tragedy would call to duty local attorneys in ways that they never contemplated, but their service would raise the bar for our entire profession.

building across from the school, a gas station’s building, pumps and signage were all completely destroyed from the violent strength of the tornados. Henryville High School was badly damaged. That evening the National Guard, Clark County Highway Department, and police agencies from Indiana and Kentucky arrived in Henryville trying to restore a minimal level of basic services to homes and to begin clearing the roadways. Two days later, I stopped at the home of Betty Carver, a local attorney whose well-maintained and preserved bungalow style home residence was consid-

X (must be demolished) or an orange O (livable). It was not hard to grasp and feel the gravity of the situation. The Board of Planners for the Clark Legal Self-Help Center (“CLSHC”) met to talk about assisting people in the tornado-ravaged area. These members include area lawyers Bob Bottorff, Mark Robinson and Marianne Conrad of Indiana Legal Services, Inc.; Clark County Bar Association President, Tom Thomas; Jill Oca, CPA and Planning; County Public Defender, Jeffrey Stonebraker; Spencer Harmon; and me. In the following days, the CLSHC became

Bark was stripped from trees, businesses leveled, homes were uplifted and moved, with once lived-in spaces found as much as a quarter of a mile from their concrete foundations. One hour later as I was home with my sons, all of the major media outlets were issuing warnings to find shelter immediately. The experts predicted that the tornados were headed for Borden and New Pekin then moving toward Henryville and Marysville. My home is about 10 miles south of that pathway. By 5:00 P.M. the highly dangerous Level E-4 tornados and accompanying storms had wreaked incredible damage on Clark County. Trees were uprooted making many roads impassable, a school bus was lodged in an office 14 MAY/JUN 2012


ered a landmark in Henryville. The roof of her home was completely ripped off. Betty is a survivor and, although hurting on the inside, her outward attitude was upbeat and courageous. The damage to other homes and buildings in Henryville and Maryville was overwhelming and destructive. Bark was stripped from trees, businesses leveled, homes were uplifted and moved, with once lived-in spaces found as much as a quarter of a mile from their concrete foundations. National Guard personnel eventually walked through Henryville and marked homes with a large orange

the focal point and point of contact for a fine demonstration of professional legal volunteer work. New Albany attorneys, Rodney Scott and John Woodard planned a free weekend legal clinic in Henryville and were quickly able to mobilize some 20 local attorneys to donate their time. The lawyers held that first clinic in an undamaged funeral home in Henryville. They met with bewildered and shocked people to discuss topics that included filing insurance loss forms, hauling debris, protecting property from looting, and proving causality loss claims. Continued on page 19

Photos courtesy of Judge Dan Moore


Above, some of the volunteer lawyers at a Commissioner Recognition meeting (left to right): Magistrate Judge Ken Abbott, Public Defender Jeffrey Stonebraker, Nicholas Karaffa, John Woodard, J. Spencer Harmon, Commissioner Ed Meyer, Amy Wheatley, Commissioner Les Young, Jill Oca, Commissioner John Perkins, Sherry Routh, and Darlene Briscoe.

Photo of an industrial used truck lot where the inventory was thrown around as if the large trucks were “matchbox models.�

The home of Betty Carver, with the top floor completely ripped off.


MAY/JUN 2012 15


Who’s Overseeing the Overseers?

A Report on the State of Adult Guardianship in Indiana


tion was gathered through presentations and reports from service providers, a review of the guardianship statutes, and responses from a statewide needs assessment. The Task Force also reviewed the resources and methods of guardianship services oversight and funding in other states, and nationally recommended standards for developing quality guardianship services.

Indiana Adult Guardianship State Task Force was convened in spring 2008. The Task Force membership includes key Indiana public/ private agencies and organizations that serve or advocate for at-risk adults in need of guardianship services and individual guardianship professionals, advocates and others with an interest in providing quality guardianship services. Judges Kevin Barton and Susan Orr Henderson represented the Indiana judiciary on the Task Force and contributed significantly to its mission. The 35 plus members of the Task Force have been supported in their work by the participation of the major Indiana state agencies with the responsibility of

issues, and needs related to adult guardianship and to support the development and provisions of community-based adult guardianship services across the state.” The initial support for the Task Force came from the Indiana Adult Guardianship Services Project (IAGS Project) of The Arc of Indiana, and funding was provided through a grant from the Indiana FSSA Division of Disability and Rehabilitative Services. In conjunction with the Task Force mission, Dr. Michael Jenuwine, J.D., Ph.D. of the Notre Dame Legal Aid Clinic conducted academic research and a review of national and Indiana guardianship demographics, data, statutes, funding sources and the recommended

The work of the Task Force has focused on examining the level of need, availability of resources, and the quality of adult guardianship services... providing services to adults in need of guardianship services. The work of the Task Force would not have been possible without the guidance of Rebecca Pryor, a national certified guardian, who served as consultant and facilitator for the group. The purpose of the Task Force is “to convene an interdisciplinary group of Indiana key stakeholders to examine the public policy, legal and service delivery

16 MAY/JUN 2012


best practices for guardianship services, standards, regulation and certification. Guardianships of incapacitated adults filed between January 1, 2008 and December 31, 2008 were reviewed in 14 jurisdictions across Indiana. The work of the Task Force has focused on examining the level of need, availability of resources, and the quality of adult guardianship services across the state and on supporting an extensive legal review of Indiana guardianships, practices and statutes. State informa-

On December 8, 2011, the following recommendations for action were reviewed and adopted by a majority vote of the Task Force members. The Task Force published its full report in February 2012. The Task Force recognizes that not all of the recommendations can be achieved immediately, or simultaneously, but believes they are goals worth pursuing. The Task Force envisions its report to create discussion and to encourage feedback on additional ways to improve guardianship services.

Recommendation 1 A state supported and funded Office of Adult Guardianship should be established as a department of the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration.

Recommendation 2 A state supported and funded system of community-based volunteer guardian services should be created to serve the need for statewide guardianship services for incapacitated adults who are indigent or without the support of suitable family members.

Recommendation 3 A state supported and funded system of mandatory guardian education, and registry should be created for all attorney, professional, and non-family member guardians appointed by the courts.

Recommendation 4 A state supported and funded adult guardianship registry should be created to collect data and issue reports on all adult guardianship cases and guardians appointed by the courts.

Recommendation 5 The Indiana Probate Code Study Commission should undertake a comprehensive review and revision of the probate code regarding guardianship under IC 29 and IC 12.

Recommendation 6 A state supported and funded information and referral resource center should be created to provide pubic education on advanced directives planning and the options available to individuals and families for substitute decision-making. Judge Susan Orr Henderson is working on the implementation of a Guardianship Registry (Recommendation 4 above) and discusses that project in further detail in the companion article. In the next few months, members of the Task Force will be giving presentations and distributing copies of the report to various professional groups, organizations and agencies. Members of Indiana’s bench and bar should review the Task Force report for an in-depth analysis of many of the issues relating to incapacitated adults in Indiana and a full discussion of the recommendations.

A copy of the entire 113-page Task Force report may be obtained by contacting Michelle Goodman at the Indiana Judicial Center, at


How a Guardianship Registry Benefits the Citizens of Indiana An

online registry tracking adult guardianships would enhance the protection of vulnerable adults, provide courts and law enforcement with vital and timely information, and allow for greater monitoring of guardianships across the state. The Probate Committee of the Judicial Conference of Indiana, in conjunction with the Indiana Adult Guardianship Task Force (IAGS), has been charged with ways to meet the increased needs of our aging/inca-

With the anticipated increase in potential guardianship filings a centralized statewide guardianship registry would address a multitude of needs. One of the primary purposes of such a registry would be to assist the courts in the oversight of guardianship administration. The Guardianship Registry could provide trial courts with a way to track guardianship cases, not only within their own county, but throughout the State. Should there be a dispute

The need to improve tracking of these cases is becoming a priority on a national basis. pacitated adult citizens. One method to address this issue is the creation of an information sharing system that will allow courts, law enforcement, government agencies, hospitals, mental health facilities and other service providers with a readily available source of information relating to guardianships. The Probate Committee has sought and received permission from Board of the Judicial Conference of Indiana to form a task force to explore the creation of a Guardianship Registry. The registry is envisioned to contain certain information that would be considered public information available to paid subscribers as well as non-public information for the eyes of the courts only.

as to where certain proceedings are pending, whether certain proceedings are pending at all; who is legally authorized to answer on behalf of an incapacitated adult/child; are required inventories and accountings being filed; has the ward died; and, is there an estate pending‌ these are but a few examples of a number of questions that can be answered with such a registry. The need to improve tracking of these cases is becoming a priority on a national basis. The numbers of guardianships will continue to increase due to the increasing numbers of aging baby boomers and a method of ensuring oversight of these cases Continued on next page


MAY/JUN 2012 17

Continued from previous page

is imperative. The lack of a statewide system makes it impossible for accurate data to be collected. All guardianships are currently given a GU case number. That identifier notes only the type of proceeding that is filed, not the type of guardianship being sought. There is no ability to collect accurate information that distinguishes case events, except as provided by a request to individual court clerks to provide that information. The ability of a county clerk to research every file to distinguish what type of guardianship has been opened is unduly

The ability to discern between adult and juvenile guardianships is also a priority. The ability for a system to track a juvenile case to the child’s 18th birthday would be just one feature to assist courts with its caseloads. In addition, courts have the option of guardianship as a permanency plan in CHINS cases. Newly enacted laws impose requirements on courts regarding notice to the Department of Child Services when dealing with abused/neglected children and guardianships. This will be extremely important when those guardianships close as DCS may wish to resume jurisdiction.

The ability of a county clerk to research every file to distinguish what type of guardianship has been opened is unduly burdensome and is unlikely to garner accurate information. burdensome and is unlikely to garner accurate information. The annual Indiana Judicial Service Report is a resource, but is limited to case filings and dispositions-not the number of adult guardianships, minor guardianships, guardianships of the person, guardianships of the estate or both, guardianships opened for minor settlement of claims, etc. The fact that a case has been “disposed” of for statistical counting purposes does not mean it has been closed for administrative oversight. The registry as a case management tool would be vital to assist courts in ensuring inventories and accountings are properly filed; automatic notices go to the guardian as well as to guardian’s counsel when mandatory filings are not received; reports to the court notifying it that a required filing has or has not been received; an alert to the court having jurisdiction over a guardianship estate that the ward has died and someone has opened an estate. These are just a few examples of how the registry could be adapted to assist courts.

18 MAY/JUN 2012


Indiana adopted the Uniform Adult Guardianship and Protective Proceedings Jurisdiction Act (UAGPPJA) in 2011. Indiana is now recognizing guardianships established in other states and ensures a process to transfer jurisdiction and oversight of those guardianships. Hospitals, mental health facilities, nursing homes and other service providers will be able to do an easy check to determine if a patient is under a guardianship and who is the court appointed legal representative. This may become more important and relevant in light of the adoption of the UAGPPJA as well as for those counties that adjoin Illinois, Michigan, Ohio and Kentucky that handle large volumes of individuals who may reside in those states but are brought across state lines into Indiana for treatment. Indiana has also adopted a Silver Alert system, similar to an Amber Alert, for when an incapacitated adult has been abducted or missing. Should a Silver Alert be issued, law enforcement would

have access to the registry to determine the necessary legal information pertaining to the alleged abducted/missing ward. It could assist state police, local sheriff ’s departments and city police in responding to calls of someone who may be lost, nonresponsive, or at the scene of a crime to be able to determine if the individual is under a guardianship and who needs to be contacted. To have 24/7 access to guardianship information that is considered public information would greatly increase law enforcement’s ability to assist families or service providers when confronted with conflicting information or highly contentious individuals. Government agencies such as the Bureau of Motor Vehicles can track and monitor if someone applying for a driver’s license is under a guardianship. The Clerk can check if someone is applying for a marriage license is under a guardianship. Information regarding guardianship status of individuals applying for a firearms permit would be readily available. Banks or other lending institutions could check to see the status of someone if suspicious activities are appearing on accounts. These may seem unlikely benefits of the registry but would certainly be options for those choosing to subscribe to this service. The probate courts in this state need additional resources to meet our obligations in overseeing guardianship cases. The lack of available, willing or suitable family members to serve as guardian has created an opening for so called “professional guardians” to be appointed. These professionals may be operating in numerous counties and are accepting appointments in the hundreds of cases and in some instances have failed miserably. The horror stories relating to those failures hurt the judiciary as a whole. The registry would allow courts access to cases throughout the state to make sure that the professional guardian is not taking on too many cases as well as to confirm that those guardians

are complying with mandatory filings and reports. Failures to visit the ward, to communicate with family and/or service providers, to ensure that the ward expenses are paid, to see that the ward is getting to his/her doctor visits, and to properly administer medicines, are examples of court experiences as a result of these appointments. The registry would assist courts when considering this type of appointment and would also reinforce and support quality guardianship services in our State. To measure support for such a project, the Probate Committee has met with: the Probate Section of the Indiana State Bar Association; the Rules of Practice and Procedure Committee of the Indiana Supreme Court; a representative of the Indiana Clerk’s Association; and, representatives of the varied interests serving as a member of IAGS. It has been widely received with much enthusiasm. Additional support and input will be necessary from other stakeholders serving the target population. A great deal of work is needed to ensure that the proposed registry conforms to current law and meets the needs of the courts, the bar and interested stakeholders. The current task force will be collaborating with representatives of Courts, Clerks, Probate attorneys, State Court Administration, Judicial Conference of Indiana, law enforcement, service providers, prosecutors, legislators, Adult Protective Services, government agencies, banks, AARP/Alzheimer’s Assoc., ARC of Indiana, Profit and Not for Profit/Volunteer Guardianship businesses/programs, and other organizations designed to address the needs of the target population. The funding for such a project is of course a factor. The task force, in conjunction with the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC), is pursuing grant opportunities in an effort to develop the INcite application necessary for the registry to become a reality.

Lawyers Raise the Bar Continued from page 14

After that first clinic, attorneys John Woodard and Mark Robinson worked with the Indiana State Bar Association (ISBA) to form an “emergency hotline” for citizens who had follow-up questions or who were not able to meet with an attorney at the Henryville clinic. The ISBA, as well as Chuck Dunlap of the Indiana Bar Foundation , made significant contributions by their presence and valuable advice. In the second week after the tornado, local attorneys Bottorff, Harmon, Darlene Briscoe worked with me to mobilize teams of lawyers to volunteer time in the evening to meet with citizens in the Borden and Marysville area. CLSHC, with the assistance of Indiana Legal Services, Inc., prepared and distributed several new disaster related booklets designed specifically for tornado victims, including FEMA information and guidelines, contact information for the Attorney General’s Office and the local Commissioner’s Office, information about donation centers, Red Cross information, and contacts for other relevant state and federal agencies who might provide assistance. Non-lawyers worked with CLSHC in this tornado relief effort providing accounting and financial assistance, organizing and distributing disaster booklets and information, fielding telephone inquiries, and making referrals to the volunteer lawyers and professionals involved in the assistance efforts. In all thirty-five lawyers answered the call to meet needs of fellow citizens in distress in Clark County. This remarkable dedication and concern for others was a heartwarming example of public service.

On May 10, 2012, the Clark County Commissioners publicly recognized and awarded Certificates of Appreciation to the volunteers who rose to the occasion by donating booklets, knowledge and time at the clinics and in other ways to aid the tornado recovery efforts, including thirty five members of the bar, as follows: Magistrate Judge Kenneth Abbott, Robert G. Bottorff, II, Darlene Briscoe, W. Brian Burnette, Robert M. Colone, Marianne Conrad, Rachele L. Cummins, Eric T. Eberwine, Mary Fondrisi,Matthew W. Forsythe, Graham T. Green, J. Spencer Harmon, Sandra L. Heeke, C. Allan Hoffer, Kristi James, Margie Jenkins, Jeffrey Stonebraker, Thomas R. Thomas, Sr, Margaret F. Timmel, Scott L. Tyler, J. Scott Waters, IV, Amy Wheatley, Derrick Wilson, John W. Woodard, Jr., Nicholas Karaffa, Jason A. Lopp, Mary McCuskey, Judge Daniel E. Moore, Jill Oca, CPA, Brenda Ooley, Gregory M. Reger, Lisa Garcia Reger, J. Mark Robinson, Sherry Routh, Richard Rush, Rodney Scott, Marc S. Sedwick, John L. Smith, William E. Smith, III, and Nick Stein. Henryville, Marysville and Borden are slowly rebuilding and it will be a long journey toward total recovery. Businesses and individuals (even the band Lady Antebellum recently provided a free prom night for Henryville high school students) demonstrated generosity on a grand scale. Even though skeptics will undoubtedly continue to make negative comments about lawyers, I offer a strong counter-point on the strength of this group of thirty-five members of the profession who raised the bar by unselfishly answering the call to duty in a time of crisis.


MAY/JUN 2012 19

Olympic Medalist Frank Shorter Delivered Moving Keynote Address at the 2012 Indiana Probation Officers Annual Conference


Indiana Probation Officers meet annually to share information concerning legislative, judicial and other developments that impact their profession, to fulfill their continuing education requirements, and to hear from interesting and inspiring speakers. On May 3, 2012 they were fortunate to hear the words of one of our true American heroes who spoke openly and from the heart on a topic that is too often hidden from the public behind walls of fear. Frank Shorter won the Gold Medal in the 1972 Olympic Marathon. He won the Silver Medal in the 1976 Olympic Marathon. He graduated from Yale University in 1969. He graduated from the University of Florida Law School in 1973. He was the founding chair-

man of the board of the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) which regulates drug-testing among athletes in this country. He was also the victim of child abuse. He was severely abused, physically, mentally and emotionally, into his high school years by his father, Dr. Samuel Shorter. His father was the classic Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde. He was a general practitioner and a highly respected doctor in Middletown, New York. The quiet town with a population of just 22,000 residents was nestled in the Hudson River Valley about 60 miles northwest of New York City. Frank Shorter told a story of great tragedy in stark contrast to his superb running accomplishments for which he was more noted. What seemed like an ideal and loving family on the outside was anything but that on

the inside. Often fueled by alcohol, his father would come up the stairs in the evening and pick out one of the children to verbally berate and to physically beat with the buckle end of his leather belt. The story Frank Shorter told of the continuing torture that he and his family endured at the hands of this man was chilling and mesmerizing. Frank Shorter told of the pain he and his brothers and sisters, as well as his mother, endured at the hands of his abusive father. He spoke movingly of his experiences and explained why he decided after many years of silence to come forward and speak out. He expressed a desire to let victims of child abuse, past and present, know that they are not alone. As with his winning seasons, Frank Shorter’s commitment to child abuse exposure and prevention continues to be an inspiration for others.

Below Left. Indiana Supreme Court Justice Frank Sullivan, Jr., (left) and Olympic Medalist Frank Shorter (right) prepare before the keynote presentation. Justice Sullivan had the honor of introducing Shorter. Below Right. Photo of a Sports Illustrated cover from 1976 featuring the year’s U.S. gold medal hopefuls.

20 MAY/JUN 2012





When and How

Judges have to sign

thousands of documents, sometimes hundreds of times each day. It is only reasonable that judges must find ways to ease this burden by seeking help from staff. Which leads to the question: may a judge authorize another individual to sign documents on behalf of the judge via use of a signature stamp or other means? The short answer is yes, but it is not the complete answer. While a judge may authorize another person to affix his signature to documents, this does not relieve the judge of the duty to exercise judicial discretion in determining what documents should be signed.

Photos Jenny Kidwell.

“. . . [A] signing or subscribing may legally be done by another for the party to such instrument, if done at his request, and . . . it may be done with pen and ink, pencil, stamp, stencil, typewriter or type . . . .” Ashwell v. Miller, (1913), 54 Ind. App. 381, 103 N.E. 37 (citations omitted) The Indiana Supreme Court has held that a rubber stamp signature is the equivalent of a signature made in pen and ink. Zollner v. State, (1920), 189 Ind. 114, 126 N.E. 1. “The signature, however affixed, is clothed with a presumption that the certifying officer stamped it as his signature or that it was stamped with his authority, . . .” Thomas v. State, 562 N.E.2d 43, 46 (Ind. App. 1990), citing James v. State ex rel. Com’r of Motor Vehicles (1985), Ind.App., 475 N.E.2d 1164, 1166.

However, in a scenario where the clerk of court or her employees, with the knowledge of the judge, affixed the judge’s signature to protective orders with a signature stamp before the judge reviewed the petitions, the Supreme Court found such practice violated several provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct. In the Matter of Funke, 757 N.E.2d 1013 (Ind. 2001).

This process involves two distinct steps: 1. the exercise of judicial discretion by the judge in making a decision and determining that a document should be signed, and 2. the actual affixing of the signature to the document, which the judge can delegate to another individual. For example, a judge may authorize an individual to affix the judge’s signature to an order waiving filing fees, but only after the judge has made the determination that such an order is appropriate. A judge may not delegate his judicial discretion in granting or denying such an order to an individual who is not a judicial officer. Similarly, when presented with a motion for proceedings supplemental, after the judge determines that the motion meets the requirements of Ind. Trial Rule 69(E) (1) through (4), the judge may authorize another individual to affix his signature to the order requiring the defendant to appear and the garnishee defendant to answer interrogatories.

For another example, a judge could provide by local rule that he has decided to grant joint requests for continuances of discovery deadlines when the request are for 30 days or less and provide in the local rule that the court reporter is authorized to affix his signature to such orders. On the other hand, a judge should never delegate the authority to review and grant default judgments by stamping the judges’ signature on orders of default judgment. The decision to grant default is a matter of judicial discretion and can only be made by the judge upon presentation of an affidavit or other proof. However, if the court has actually reviewed a motion for default, examined the tendered documents, and made a decision to grant or not to grant, the judge could direct staff to affix the signature to orders, which he has determined reflect his decision. We suggest that the best practice is for the judge to have a local rule, spelling out who has authority to use the judges’ signature stamp and under what specific circumstances. Making this information easily available to all staff and court users protects the judge from unauthorized use of his signature stamp and assures court users that documents containing the judge’s stamped signature are in fact legitimate.


MAY/JUN 2012 21



Hon. Mary R. Harper & Hon. David L. Chidester This is the nineteenth of our Court Times articles that highlight up close and personal a member of the Indiana Judiciary. This issue we are focusing on two Judges in Porter County who are married… to each other: Judge Mary R. Harper, Porter Circuit Court and Judge David L. Chidester, Porter Superior Court #4. Judge Chidester sent the following introduction to their unique situation which says it quite well:

“We figure that we have saved the State of Indiana about $500 in hotel rooms during the judicial conference by sharing a room. The obvious security concerns with two judges in one house are something we don’t dwell upon too much. I don’t know of many

22 MAY/JUN 2012


But just to watch or hear about Mary in action is a learning experience. I don’t know if it just comes from being a judge for near 30 years, or Mary’s unique personality, but she can sentence a really bad person in a courteous and professional way, all the time putting the screws to him or her. As they leave the courtroom, they actually thank her for their lengthy sentence to the Department of Correction. I, on the other hand, get confronted with the angry, confrontational and contemptuous litigants who leave the courtroom swearing and wishing to immediately appeal. Just two different types of personalities, methods, one the product of the gift of experience and perhaps because I am in County Division and she is in Plenary Division, but it’s a strange phenomenon to watch.”


What do you like most and least about being a trial court judge? On the plus side, this position allows the opportunity to be a difference maker. Judges are in the unique position to perceive inadequacies in the system. Whether criminal justice, juvenile justice, or civil litigation related, we can identify system weaknesses and/ or failures, and take effective action to address them. We have a great ability to get people to come to the table, as not many will reject our invitation to attend a meeting. With the proper systems and community representatives around the table, goals become attainable. On the negative side, as a trial court judge, we see failure so often. If we do a great job on cases, perhaps with sentencing orders that are highly rehabilitative and the defendants turn around their lives, we likely will never see them again. What we do see on a daily basis are probation violations for new crimes, failures to comply, multi generational crimes, and such.

What was your major in college and why did you decide to study law? Undergraduate major was political science. My Dad recommended that I attend law school and he paid for it. He was an employment counselor and owned several staffing agencies. So, I

Photo courtesy of Judges Harper and Chidester

Judge Mary Harper and Judge David Chidester were married on July 31st, 1993. Judge Harper was a Superior Court Judge in Portage, Indiana since 1984 and Judge Chidester was an attorney, practicing in federal court as a public defender. Their first date was to a Chicago Bears’ football game in October of 1987. Judge Chidester was elected Superior Court Judge in Valparaiso in 2003. Judge Harper is a Republican and Judge Chidester is a Democrat. In 1996, Judge Harper was elected to be the Circuit Court Judge of Porter County. Since 2003, Judges Harper and Chidester are the only married trial court judges in Indiana.

other couples in the state where upon reversal or affirmation, an instant text message is sent by a spouse. There are so many positives to come out of this situation that don’t readily come to mind. Morning coffee might begin with, “can you believe this lawyer did this...”, or “Don’t forget I have to be in Indy today and you’ll have to handle my call.” What others might think is highly peculiar we just now take for granted.

accepted his recommendation and have appreciated his guidance in this and many other areas of life.

What would you do if you were not a judge? I was a litigator and enjoyed it very much. Of course, I’m in my 28th year on the bench and acknowledge the practice has changed a great deal since I was a trial attorney. At this stage of my life, if I were not a trial court judge, I would be working on policy in some capacity.

Who are the people you most admire? My family. My husband, son and father are the “go to” people in my life for advice and counsel. My mother-in-law is a blessing as my example of the active lifestyle that allows great enrichment as we age. How fortunate it is to love and admire those closest to you.

The oenophile judges. Judges Harper and Chidester enjoying the fruits of Napa Valley, California in 2005.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities, and how did you first get involved? I love to garden. My mom introduced me to it when I was a child. I now spend many hours digging like a mole. Planning which includes timing and design, soil analysis and amendment, and the acquisition of plants are enjoyable. As we live in a rural area and have many critters wandering around our grounds, the often pitched battle with four legged creatures over the fate of plants can be a vexing, yet fun, challenge. It is also one that I don’t always win. For the last 15 years, my husband and I have collected wine. We found on our travels that locating a really good wine is enjoyable. Procuring great wine is not likely to happen in a financially reasonable way without good research and the ability to identify outstanding vintages and vintners of high quality with reasonable pricing. Our primary areas of

interest are those from California, Willamette Valley and the State of Washington. In terms of foreign wine, we concentrate on Chateauneuf du Pape. It is an intriguing pastime to research, locate, and secure a really good wine that will then sit in a wine refrigerator to age for more than a decade. This hobby also serves as the basis for some great travels to wine regions.

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are reading now, that you would recommend? I like to read about history. As my husband is a Tulane grad and my son is now a public defender in Orleans Parish, I’ve been reading a number of books about Louisiana politics. I have recently finished Huey Long’s Louisiana Hayride. What a ride it was! No one could possibly make up stories as crazy as the political history of Louisiana. Continued on next page


MAY/JUN 2012 23

SID EBAR Continued from previous page

What are the most enjoyable and most difficult aspects of serving on the bench in the same county with your spouse? I think it is a positive that each of us very much understands what the other is going through at work. We enjoy sharing the funny stories and can really get what makes them so funny. We also can lend a learned ear and shoulder when needed. We each understand how it is possible to come home from a day at work that you have spent sitting in one chair or another and be totally exhausted. Dave is a really huge help to me at court. My commitment to system improvement and doing what I can to add value to our profession means I have undertaken a number of obligations that can necessitate trips to Indianapolis on short notice. Dave has a work ethic that is unmatched. He can do his court call and mine and then look for more work to do. He makes the Energizer Bunny look like a slacker. The fact that we are of different political parties and run for election on the same cycle can get interesting. We each are quite devoted to our respective party. This makes for a lot of solo appearances at political events. I did appreciate the fact that last election cycle I was unopposed and was the only Republican who didn’t have opposition in May and didn’t have a candidate slated against me. I keep wondering if the fact that Dave’s brother is the Democratic County Chairman had anything to do with that. Some things we encounter have left me scratching my head and chuckling. After all these years, 19, some of those with whom we come into professional

24 MAY/JUN 2012


contact don’t know we’re married. We sleep with a fax machine next to the bed for nighttime warrant requests and get a lot of calls. Most are for Dave, as he handles the traffic and OWI cases. A number of officers call for Dave and if he is out of town, they sound lost and tell me they need to find a judge. Some others, when I tell them I’m Judge Harper and I can help them, act like they have just stumbled upon a scandalous liaison. For years when we have made a dinner reservation in Chicago under Judge Harper (easier name to spell), the maitre d’ has grabbed Dave to whisk him off to a table. If I make the mistake of looking around when Dave goes to check us in, I would have to ask where Judge Harper has been seated. Dave and I live a quiet, private life away from the courthouse.

Where did you grow up and how would you describe your childhood? I grew up in South Bend. I have three brothers and no sisters. Hence, I was a tomboy. My dad was a successful businessman and our parents helped us have a good life. I attended parochial schools through the 12th grade. Then went to college in Colorado and had a great time playing in the Rockies.

Do you have a favorite quote(s)? Mine: “Never eat in a restaurant where you have sentenced the cook.”

Where is your favorite vacation spot? The Big Island of Hawaii, Napa, and wherever my son is living.

Do you have a favorite meal, recipe, and restaurant? I enjoy cooking which is good, as it is expected in our family that I will prepare my late mother’s outstanding recipes during the holidays and for family gatherings. It is meaningful to me that I can put a meal on the table that has been prepared using my treasured copies of Mom’s recipes written in her own hand. The recipes are heavy on Hungarian dishes. My favorite restaurant is The Canoe House located at the Mauna Lani Bay Hotel and Bungalows on the shores of the Pacific Ocean on the Big Island of Hawaii. Our family has a home near there. So, I have the great fortune to dine ocean-side and enjoy line-caught Pacific fish as the sun gently slips out of sight.


What do you like most and least about being a trial court judge? Perhaps from being raised in a family of union officials, I like to observe and study the business of judging from the point of interacting with other judges, attending the National Judicial College in Reno and listening to other judges, seeing how legislators treat judges and how judges interact with the executive branch, whether prosecutors or state officials. I enjoy the September conference and the camaraderie among judges and talking to the judicial center staff. I enjoyed my time on the Board of Directors because it was similar to being a griever and representing a body or district of judges. My least favorite aspect of judging comes from every legislative session when new laws undo the work of well-meaning judges and court administrators.

What was your major in college and why did you decide to study law? Political Science and English. Having attended Tulane in New Orleans, you can imagine my real major. I wanted to be an attorney since 4th grade. I admired public speakers and leaders in the community. Those leaders were either lawyers or educators.

What would you do if you were not a judge? I would be a licensed battlefield guide at Gettysburg National Military Park and give tours to visitors and school children seven days a week.

Who are the people you most admire? Mary, of course. Also my Mom who at age 83 can shoot 79 in golf. My brother, Jeff, who is the Porter County Democratic Chairman. He has never asked me to do anything political in violation of the Code and knows that he will only see me every six years on the banquet circuit. Finally, Mary’s father, Jim Rudasics, whose advice I would follow without question. As to judges, I practiced before my mentors, federal judges James Moody, Rudy Lozano and Alan Sharp. Oh to be like them in federal court with a lifetime appointment.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities, and how did you first get involved? Anything Civil War related. I visit battlefields in the east and south twice per year, but am not a re-enactor (living historian). I read anything I can find about Lincoln and can give a tour of the John Wilkes Booth escape

route. As a second hobby, I visit college bookstores and rank them by objective standards for my upcoming blog. I’ve visited over 300 college bookstores and have the tee shirts to prove it. I always loved as a kid to visit the Notre Dame bookstore before the football game.

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are reading now, that you would recommend? Imagine your local public library having nothing but Civil War books on their stacks and you can now envision my study at home. Currently, I am reading O. Edward Cunningham’s The Battle of Shiloh.

What are the most enjoyable and most difficult aspects of serving on the bench in the same county with your spouse? Mary and I enjoy a fierce and blinding loyalty to each other, especially if opposed at election time. We protect each other, and do things for each other that no pro tem or senior judge can do. I’ll cover her call on a moment’s notice if she is called to Indianapolis. She does her best to keep me out of difficulty with Judicial Qualifications. We enjoy listening to the embarrassment in the voices of rookie police officers who call at 3:00 am for a blood search warrant and ask for me but recognize Mary’s voice but think they have come across some scandal. The only negative is that we jointly go out of our way to not give the appearance of being some bloc of authority, so much so that we fail to express our true opinions to those deserving of rebuke. Also, we don’t have that other spouse to find ways to socialize outside the home

in a non-judicial atmosphere. Maybe that’s why we like to go to Las Vegas.

Where did you grow up and how would you describe your childhood? I grew up in Gary, Indiana and attended Lew Wallace High School. My mother and father met while she was a Master Sargeant and he a First Lieutenant and Airborne Ranger in the Korean War. She was a 3rd grade teacher and he an ironworker and union official. It was fun and disciplined. I was an ironworker apprentice for 10 summers and even got to walk on foot wide beams, 30 stories off the the wind.

Do you have a favorite quote(s)? After a bad day in court, “Quit whining...Mary has done this for 28 years.” My other favorite is from Alex Sarkisian, Captain of the Northwestern University Rose Bowl winning football team: “Good, Better, Best. Better than the Rest.”

Where is your favorite vacation spot? Tie: Gettysburg, Vegas, Napa, New Orleans and Chicago. I have never stepped foot out of the United States. Until I see Fargo, North Dakota and Walla Walla, Washington, there is no pressing need to see Paris. Plus my Civil War battlefield tours keep me in this country.

Do you have a favorite meal, recipe, and restaurant? Anything seafood...and I search menus far and wide for calves liver.


MAY/JUN 2012 25


When the Honorable Judge Has Been Served...Send it to me! The

unpleasant day might arrive when a summons or a notice arrives that names a judge as a defendant. Do not fret, just send it to me! There are four primary types of notices or summons that may land on a judge’s desk: unemployment claims, discrimination charges, notice of tort claims and actual lawsuits. The type of response will depend on the nature of the case or complaint. In every civil case you can count on the assistance of the Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Administration.

A self-represented individual is the most likely litigant to file a federal or state claim against a judge. These lawsuits typically assert that the judge has deprived the plaintiff of a constitutional right. It is often a collateral attack on a domestic relations order or on the entry of a criminal judgment or sentence. A judge who is subject to this type of action should make a courtesy call to me with some background information and we will have a brief initial conversation. Please ask your assistant to send the complaint and summons to me by fax or by email as a scanned attachment, including information about the date and method of service. On behalf of the judge who has been sued, we will request representation from the Office of the Attorney General to defend a judge who is sued in his or her official capacity. Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller has an entire team of experienced attorneys who are adept at making the proper summary motions 26 MAY/JUN 2012


to dispose of such collateral attacks. As he recently quipped at the Bar Admission Ceremony, his Deputies “zoellerously” defend all cases. By sending the request for representation through me, a judge will be assured that the complaint will be properly assigned and that timely follow-up information will be sent. Judges may use me as a go-between or resource if there are questions regarding the lawsuit. In those rare situations

The Indiana Supreme Court created the position of employment law attorney to handle this gap in representation. where the lawsuit involves a direct challenge to an Indiana Rule of Court or a statewide court practice, multiple staff members from the Supreme Court agencies may be enlisted to provide support, give guidance, and act as a client representative. A Notice of Tort Claim may precede the filing of a complaint. In that case, the judge may fax or scan the Notice to me and I will request representation on behalf of the judge. It is common practice

for the Attorney General’s Tort Claim section to not respond to the Notice as a claim is deemed denied if not approved within 90 days. Employees and others with standing may bring charges against judges alleging discrimination based on sex, age, race, national origin, or religion. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, the Indiana Civil Rights Commission, or a local civil rights commission may also allege discrimination against a judge. The Office of the Attorney General does not generally handle administrative agency matters, and would only enter an appearance on behalf of a judge under certain circumstances. One example would be when the AG’s office is already involved in a related federal lawsuit. However, even if the Attorney General would not be involved, a judge will still be represented by counsel. The Indiana Supreme Court created the position of employment law attorney to handle this gap in representation. Upon receipt of a charge of discrimination, a judge should immediately send it to me. I will enter an appearance on your behalf and prepare for your defense. Especially for judges in courts with small staffs, there are multiple jurisdictional

If a judge needs assistance or advice about these matters, contact Brenda Rodeheffer at (317) 234-3936 or

defenses that may be made. Often a discrimination charge is filed that names the wrong entity or is filed against both a state judge and the county where the judge presides. We can collaborate to determine the appropriate defense counsel. The Division of State Court Administration will also assist in the defense of claims by terminated employees. Judges should consult with me prior to terminating an employee. We will help protect the judge from charges of discrimination or complaints of constitutional violations. A prior consultation also gives us the opportunity to discuss what to do if an unemployment claim is filed, including whether it will be handled by the county attorney or this office. The time between receiving an unemployment claim and the deadline for responding is brief—sometimes less than 48 hours. There may be no time to gather the necessary information if we learn of the termination after an unemployment claim is filed. If it is probable that an unemployment compensation claim defense may be successful, then as a matter of responsibility to the taxpayer, it will be contested. If there is little or no probability that a defense will be successful, then it will not be contested. We can assist with any unemployment compensation claim from a former court employee. In addition, Magistrate, Commissioner, and Chief Deputy Prosecutor claims are all paid directly from the Supreme Court account. It is important on these claims that the Court’s employment law attorney be given the opportunity to examine whether or not a protest should be made for such unemployment benefits claims. While it is never a heart-warming experience to get served with a Notice, Charge or Summons, each judge may be assured that there are mechanisms set up through the Division of State Court Administration and the Office of Attorney General to provide full representation. First step in each case: send it to me!

Watch it on YouTube

Indiana Electronic Risk Assessment System

Christina Ball, Deputy Chief Probation Officer, Juvenile Services Division - Marion County

William Cunningham, Executive Director, Grant County Community Corrections

Learn about Indiana’s electronic Risk Assessment System for juvenile and adult criminal offenders in two new videos on the Indiana Supreme Court’s YouTube channel: An overview of the system and a user testimonial by William Cunningham, Executive Director at Grant County Community Corrections. Available as part of the INcite suite of web software, and developed by the Judicial Technology and Automation Committee (JTAC), the Risk Assessment System is in use by probation and corrections offices across Indiana. Other states interested in learning about Indiana’s system and JTAC’s experience developing the software may contact Mary DePrez at (317) 234-2604 or

Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration 30 South Meridian Street, Suite 500 Indianapolis, IN 46204

EDITORIAL BOARD Lilia G. Judson, Publisher Executive Director, State Court Admin. David J. Remondini, Managing Editor Chief Deputy Executive Director, State Court Admin. James F. Maguire, Editor Staff Attorney, State Court Admin. Lindsey Borschel, Publication Designer Web Coordinator, State Court Admin./JTAC

MISSION Our goal is to foster communications, respond to concerns, and contribute to the spirit and pride that encompasses the work of all members of the judiciary around the state. We welcome your comments, suggestions and news. If you have an article, advertisements, announcement, or particular issue you would like to see in our publication, please contact us by mail or email at

CONTRIBUTORS Hon. Barbara L. Brugnaux Senior Judge Hon. Susan Orr Henderson Founatin Circuit Court Hon. Daniel E. Moore Clark Circuit Court Hon. Diane Kavadias Schneider Lake Superior Court Lilia G. Judson Executive Director, State Court Administration Brenda Rodeheffer Director, Office and Employment Law Services, State Court Administration Tom Carusillo Director, Trial Court Services, State Court Administration James F. Maguire Staff Attorney, State Court Administration Elana Salzman Staff Attorney, State Court Administration

Stay Connected The Indiana Court Times is available online at If you like the online version better than the magazine, you can unsubscribe from the paper version by emailing Yolanda Collins at Subscribe to the Court Times online by email or with the RSS reader of your choice.

Follow Indiana Courts on Twitter at Watch videos at the Indiana Courts channel at PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference.

Indiana Court Times 21.3  

MAY/JUN 2012 issue of the Indiana Court Times, the bi-monthly newsletter published by the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Admi...

Indiana Court Times 21.3  

MAY/JUN 2012 issue of the Indiana Court Times, the bi-monthly newsletter published by the Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Admi...