Preview:

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT Susan K. Carpenter Public Defender of Indiana J. Michael Sauer Deputy Public Defender Indianapolis, Indiana

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE Steve Carter Attorney General of Indiana Cynthia L. Ploughe Deputy Attorney General Indianapolis, Indiana

______________________________________________________________________________

In the

Indiana Supreme Court
_________________________________ No. 62S05-0501-CR-15 HENRY LUKE KELLEMS, JR., Appellant (Defendant below), v. STATE OF INDIANA, Appellee (Plaintiff below). _________________________________ Appeal from the Perry Circuit Court, Nos. 62C01-0203-FD-236, 62C01-9911-DF-585 The Honorable James A. McEntarfer, Judge _________________________________ On Petition for Rehearing _________________________________ June 29, 2006 Sullivan, Justice.

Henry Kellems was found guilty of being a habitual traffic offender and in violation of his probation in a bench trial held on October 23, 2003. The Court of Appeals reversed Kellems's conviction and the trial court's decision to deny a motion to suppress evidence gathered during the traffic stop that led to his arrest. Kellems v. State, 816 N.E.2d 421, 427 (Ind. Ct. App. 2004). It held that there was insufficient evidence to support the trial court's conviction of

Kellems or its revocation of his probation. Id. As its disposition rested solely on its resolution of the issue of whether the tipster's call was legally sufficient to support the subsequent stop of Kellems's vehicle, the Court of Appeals did not reach three additional issues raised by Kellems in his brief to that court.

On review in this Court, both parties focused the arguments in their briefs on the single issue decided by the Court of Appeals--the sufficiency of the tip to support an investigatory stop of Kellems's vehicle. On that issue, we held that the tip in Kellems's case "was sufficient to provide [police] with reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of [his] car." Kellems v. State, 842 N.E.2d 352, 356 (Ind. 2006).

Kellems seeks rehearing. As his basis for further review, he cites our failure to address his other arguments for review presented to the Court of Appeals. We grant rehearing to address one of these issues: whether he was denied his constitutional right to be tried by jury.

Discussion

A fundamental linchpin of our system of criminal justice is the right to a trial by jury. See U.S. Const. amend. VI; Ind. Const. art. 1,

Download Henry Luke Kellems v. State of Indiana.pdf

Indiana Law