Indiana Court Times 21.2

Issue 21.2 MAR/APR 2012

ARTICLES

CASA Rally at State House 6

Supreme Court Addresses Access to Justice Issues in the Marion County Small Claims Courts 7

2012 Court Reform Grant Applications Now Available 7

Trial Rule 81.1 Procedures for Cases Involving Family or Household Members 8

How Much is the Toll for the Road to Relief from Driver License Suspension? 9

Farewell to the Chief 10

COLUMNS

ASK ADRIENNE Choosing a New Chief; Indiana Merit Selection 2

SPOTLIGHT 14

SIDEBAR Hon. Wayne S. Trockman 16

BITS & BYTES New INcite Application for Presentence Investigation Goes Live Statewide 18

BY ADRIENNE MEIRING COUNSEL TO THE INDIANA COMMISSION ON JUDICIAL QUALIFICATIONS

As the dwindling seconds of the clock ticked on the 1987 NCAA basketball

championship game, Keith Smart launched Indiana onto the national stage by delivering a buzzer-beating two-pointer to defeat Syracuse and claim Indiana University a national title. But this was not the first time in March 1987 that the State of Indiana had attracted a national eye. Ear-lier that month, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission made history by selecting forty-year-old Randall T. Shepard as the state’s next chief justice, then the youngest chief justice in the United States.

In the twenty-five years since that ap-pointment, Randall T. Shepard has con-tinued to make history and to garner national respect for Indiana’s judicial system. In addition to authoring hun-dreds of opinions (many touching on issues of importance to other states), Chief Justice Shepard guided Indiana’s judiciary by launching and encourag-ing new programs aimed at improving the system.

With his recent retirement from the bench, this has left many to wonder—what comes next? Who will be the next Chief Justice and how will he shape Indiana’s judicial future? Once again,

the Indiana Judicial Nominating Com-mission has taken on the spotlight, and the work that the Commission does and how it accomplishes those tasks have become topics of interest.

How will the next chief justice be selected?Filling the vacancies created by Chief Justice Shepard’s departure (to the Court and to the office of chief justice) actually is a two-step process. First, the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commis-sion had to submit the names of three nominees to the Governor for him to appoint the next justice of the Indiana Supreme Court. See Ind. Const., Art. 7, Sect. 10. The next step is for the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commis-sion to meet to decide who, among the current justices of the Court (including the new justice), will become the chief justice. Once selected, the Chief Justice will serve a five-year term as the chief justice. See Ind. Const., Art. 7, Sect. 3.

Typically, the Nominating Commis-sion’s procedure for selecting the chief justice starts with publicly interviewing all of the justices (regardless of whether the justice is seeking the office) to hear each one’s thoughts about what quali-ties are important for a chief justice

Cover Photo. Lindsey Borschel.

ASK ADRIENNE

2 MAR/APR 2012 courttimes

to possess. After those interviews are completed, the Commission meets in an executive session to consider the qualifications of those justices who have indicated an interest in the office. The Commission then votes in a public session for the chief justice.

Indiana is the only state in which a judicial nominating commission selects the chief justice. See American Judicature Society Website, “Methods of Judicial Selection” at tinyurl.com/judicial-selection. In most states, the chief justice is selected by the members of the court, by popular election, or by gubernatorial appointment.

Who are the individuals responsible for making the chief justice selection?The composition of the Nominating Commission is governed by Article 7, Section 9 of the Indiana Constitution and I.C. § 33-27-2 et seq. The Commis-sion consists of seven members: three attorney members, three non-lawyer members, and the Chief Justice or a Justice of the Supreme Court whom the Chief Justice may designate. Currently, Justice Brent Dickson is serving as the Chairman of the Commission.

An attorney and a non-attorney repre-sentative are chosen from each of the three geographic districts of the Court of Appeals. I.C. §§ 33-27-2-1; 33-27-2-2. Attorney members serve three-year staggered terms, after being elected by the attorneys in their respective dis-tricts. I.C. § 33-27-2-2. The Governor appoints the non-attorney members to serve three-year terms. I.C. § 33-27-2-1.

First District RepresentativesMolly Kitchell grew up in Kokomo, and then she moved to New England before settling down in Boone County. She obtained a B.A. in Sociology from Purdue University and then obtained an M.S. in Occupational Therapy from the University of Indianapolis, graduating first in the class for both her undergraduate and graduate programs. After graduation, she worked as an occupational therapist, primarily in the area of neurological and psychological rehabilitation. She and her husband, Ryan, have four children, and for the past ten years her primary focus has been raising them. In her spare time, she serves on the Board of Directors for the Governor’s Interagency Coordinat-ing Council for Infants and Toddlers with Disabilities. Her term on the Commission expires 12/31/13.

James O. McDonald, Esq. grew up on a farm and continues to live on a working farm in western Vigo County. He was admitted to the Indiana Uni-versity Robert H. McKinney School of Law when it was solely a night school. While going to law school, he worked in the office of Lieutenant Governor Richard Folz and then clerked for the Indiana Court of Appeals. Since 1972, he has practiced law in Terre Haute, concentrating on litigation of personal injury and business disputes for indi-viduals and small businesses. His term expires 12/31/12.

Second District RepresentativesFred McCashland, a Marion County resident, is a retired educator from Brebeuf Jesuit Preparatory School. He obtained his B.A. in American History and American Government from Iona College and received a M.A. in Ameri-can Government and International Relations from the University of Notre Dame. During his thirty-four year career at Brebeuf, he taught American history and government, chaired the social studies department, and served as an academic counselor. Other posi-

Photo. Kathryn Dolan.Members of the Judicial Nominating Commission concluding an interview with Mark S. Massa (left), who was later chosen as a finalist and appointed as the 107th Indiana Supreme Court Justice by Gov. Mitch Daniels.

Continued on next page

courttimes MAR/APR 2012 3

1 One of the Plan’s key supporters was Rush Limbaugh Sr., the grandfather of former Missouri Supreme Court Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr., and cousin of political commentator Rush Limbaugh. See Laura Denvir Stith and Jeremy Root, The Missouri Nonpartisan Court Plan: The Least Political Method of Selecting High Quality Judges, 74 Miss. Law Rev. 711, 723 (2009).

2 Besides Indiana, the other states which choose judges by “Missouri Plan” merit selection are Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kansas, Missouri, Oklahoma, Nebraska, South Dakota, Tennessee, and Wyoming. See American Judicature Society Website, “Judicial Selection in the States—Methods of Judicial Selection” at www.judicialselection.us.

3 Delaware, Hawaii, Maryland, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, and Vermont require senate consent or confirmation of a governor’s selection after a recommendation from a nominating commission. In Connecticut and New Hampshire, the governor makes a judicial nomination after a recommendation from the nominating commis-sion but either the legislature (Connecticut) or an executive council (New Hampshire) make the actual appointment. Id.

Nationwide, selection of appellate judges typically occurs in one of three ways: contested election, politi-cal appointment, or merit selection. The “Missouri Plan,” as merit selection is sometimes referred to, first emerged in 1940 when prominent Missouri citizens1 sought to change the way their judges were selected because of perceived abuses/weaknesses with the other means of selection. Id.

Their proposal was the Missouri Non-partisan Court Plan, which set forth the following key elements: 1) creation of a judicial commission that would be responsible for soliciting and consider-ing applications for any judicial va-cancy and then nominating from that pool three highly qualified candidates for the Governor’s consideration; 2) Governor then would be charged with selecting one of the nominees to fill the vacancy; and 3) after a one or two-year “probationary” period, the public then would vote in a retention election whether the judge would be retained for a full term. Id. at 725.

Indiana Merit Selection and the “Missouri Plan”

Despite the Missouri legislature’s failure to put a nonpartisan judicial selection system on the ballot through the refer-endum process, there was such strong support for change in judicial selec-tion that proponents of the Missouri Plan collected signatures throughout the state in order to get the Plan on the ballot by initiative petition. Id. at 723. Missouri voters adopted the Plan in November 1940 and successfully defended it afterwards at balloting, despite various legislative attempts to undermine the addition of the Mis-souri Plan to the state constitution. Id.

Currently, thirteen states2 including In-diana employ “Missouri Plan” merit se-lection processes for choosing appellate judges. Nine other states employ merit selection systems with some variations3 (i.e. requiring senate confirmation of a governor’s selection). The Indiana Constitution was amended in 1970 to create the Indiana Judicial Nominating Commission, but the amendment did not take effect until January 1, 1972. Indiana is the only state where the judicial nominating commission selects the chief justice.

tions he served while at Brebeuf includ-ed Director of Development, Dean of Students, assistant to the President, and then President for two years. His term on the Commission expires 12/31/12.

William E. Winingham, Jr., Esq., is a partner at Wilson Kehoe & Wining-ham in Indianapolis. After graduating from the Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law, he worked as a deputy prosecutor in the Marion County Prosecutor’s Office for three years, and then served as an Assistant U.S. Attorney for three years in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Southern Dis-trict of Indiana. For the last twenty-five

years, he has been with the civil litiga-tion firm of Wilson Kehoe Winingham, LLC, focusing on plaintiffs' personal injury work. His term expires 12/31/13.

Third District RepresentativesD. Jean Northenor, a Kosciusko County resident, is a retired executive from Lake City Bank. She began her eighteen-year career with the bank in the marketing department and ended it as the Executive Vice President in charge of marketing, human resources, maintenance, and construction. She served two years on the Lake City Bank’s Board of Directors before retiring in 2003. In the 1980s, she also spearhead-ed the Kosciusko Leadership Academy

to encourage young people to cultivate their leadership skills and to get in-volved in public service. Her term with the Commission expires 12/31/14.

John D. Ulmer, Esq., is a former part-ner at Yoder Ainlay Ulmer & Buck-ingham, LLP, in Goshen and presently serves as an attorney of counsel for the firm. He practices general trial work, focusing on personal injury and insur-ance defense litigation. He graduated with distinction from Indiana Univer-sity Maurer School of Law and, while in law school, served on the Board of Editors for the Indiana Jaw Journal. He previously served as an Elkhart County deputy prosecutor and later, after leav-ing the office, was appointed to act as a special deputy prosecuting attorney on the Ford Pinto trial. He served in the

Continued from previous page


Indiana’s Merit Selection ProcessUnder the Indiana Constitution and applicable statutes, the Nominating Commission is charged with vetting applications and submitting a list of the three most qualified applicants to the Governor for each vacancy that oc-curs on the Supreme Court, Court of Appeals, or Tax Court. Typically, the Nominating Commission accomplishes the task by publicly announcing the va-cancy and soliciting applications for the

Indiana House of Representatives from 1998 to 2008. His term on the Com-mission expires 12/31/14.

What factors does the Nominating Commission consider when evaluating a candidate?Under Indiana Code § 33-27-3-2, the Commission is required to consider each candidate’s legal education, legal writings, reputation in the practice of law, physical ability to do the job, finan-cial interests (for conflict-of-interest purposes), public service activities, and other pertinent information the Commission feels is important to select

the most qualified candidates. As may be gleaned from the Commission’s questions during interviews, other fac-tors also may be considered, in vary-ing degrees of importance, such as an applicant’s trial or appellate advocacy background, administrative experience, pro bono commitment, ability to con-tribute to the diversity of the court, and other special professional talents.

When selecting a chief justice, other factors also may take on greater impor-tance. For instance, given the number of speeches a chief justice delivers, a justice-candidate’s communica-tion skills may be a significant factor. Likewise, factors such as the justice-candidate’s leadership skills, reputa-tion for collegiality and consensus

building, organizational management skills, vision, and ability to serve as a role model for the Court also may be influential considerations.

Just as 1987 proved to be a year of significance for Indiana, 2012 holds similar promises. As the Judicial Nom-inating Commission prepares for the business of selecting the next leader of our state’s judiciary, the hope is that the members will continue with Indiana’s historic and winning tradition. Having worked with this group for some time now, I am confident that they are up to the task. We are all in good hands and should be proud of what our State has to offer the national legal landscape.

LEFT. Merit selection of appellate-level judges in the United States. According to the American Judicature Society, twenty-four states use some form of the Missouri Plan (i.e., some include a third step involving senate confirmation) to select appellate judges: Alaska, Arizona, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, South Dakota, Tennessee, Utah, Vermont and Wyoming.

For more information, see tinyurl.com/judicial-selection

position. After selecting applicants for further consideration, the Commission conducts background checks, publicly interviews the selected candidates (usually in two separate rounds), and deliberates in executive session about the candidates’ qualifications.

Once the Commission finishes delib-erating, the members vote in a public session for the top three nominees and later (usually within a week to ten days) submits a report to the Governor with a summary of the three nomi-nees’ qualifications. From the time the

Governor receives the report, he or she then has sixty days to appoint an indi-vidual from that list to fill the vacancy.

If the Governor does not make a selec-tion within sixty days, then, accord-ing to Indiana Code § 33-27-3-4 and Indiana Constitution, Article 7, Section 10, the Chief Justice of Indiana or act-ing Chief Justice is required to make a selection from the list of three nomi-nees. Since the creation of the Nomi-nating Commission, no Governor has forfeited his power to appoint a justice of the Indiana Supreme Court.


V olunteers from Indiana’s Court Appointed Special Advocates (CASA) programs came from across the state and took part

in a rally in Indianapolis on March 5th. Approximately 350 people clothed in blue T-shirts filled the north atrium of the State House. The goal of the rally was to draw attention to the need for more CASA volunteers and the impor-tance of their role as a voice for vulner-able children.

There are 3,200 CASA volunteers work-ing in 72 Indiana counties advocating on behalf of 18,613 abused and neglect-ed children. CASA volunteers advo-cate on behalf of abused and neglected children whose families are involved with the child welfare system.

Supreme Court Justice Steven David addressed those in attendance. Leslie Dunn, director of the State Office of GAL/CASA, was also one of the fea-tured speakers. And, Danielle Pierson, a former foster youth and now on the staff at Child Advocates in Indianapo-lis, also spoke at the rally about her ex-periences in foster care and the benefits of having a child advocate.

Indiana Chief Justice Randall T. Shepa-rd was honored for his long-time com-mitment to CASA and presented with a small statue of children with a plaque thanking him for his many years of commitment to CASA programs and to Indiana’s children. The Rally was spon-sored by the Indiana Child Advocates Network and the State Office of GAL/CASA, of the Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administration.

CASA Rally at Indiana State House

Photo. Dave Remondini.


2012 Court Reform Grant Applications Now AvailableThe Indiana Supreme Court Division of State Court Administration announced that the application for 2012 Court Reform Grants is now available online. The application is available at courts.in.gov/admin/2420.htm.

The Division encourages judges to ap-ply for a grant. The money awarded can help improve your local court system. Up to $30,000 per grant request is available for initial study grants, while up to $40,000 per request is available for implementation grants. Last year, the Court awarded $280,510 to a total of 10 counties.

Requests for the following projects will be given priority consideration:

1. Unified court administration

2. Multi-county and/or multi-district problem-solving courts

3. Measuring court performance through use of CourTools

4. Studies and/or implementation of ways courts could consolidate judi-cial responsibility for court records

5. Modern court technology

For more information on these catego-ries and the types of grants awarded please refer to the Court Reform Grant Application. Grant applications are due by June 1, 2012.

For questions or more information about the Court Reform Grants, please con-tact Elizabeth Daulton, Staff Attorney, at [email protected] or (317) 234-7155.

The Indiana Supreme Court recently sought the as-

sistance of the Supreme Court Rules Committee and a specially appointed Task Force in address-ing some potential access to justice issues in the Marion County Small Claims Court system. The matters were introduced to a national audi-ence in an article appearing in the July 18, 2011 Wall Street Journal. It raised questions about some of the practices and procedures employed in these courts, including charges of “forum shopping” and concern about township trustee influence over the operations of the courts.

In all other Indiana counties, the circuit or superior courts hear and resolve small claims cases. In Marion County, nine divisions of the Marion County Small Claims Court system handle collection disputes and landlord-tenant matters with a $6,000 limit.

Chief Justice Shepard in January 2012 appointed a two-person Small Claims Task Force—Court of Ap-peals Judge John Baker and Senior Judge Betty Barteau, a former Court of Appeals Judge—to investigate allegations that the Marion County Small Claims Courts do not meet fairness and impartiality standards.

Both Judge Baker and Judge Barteau spent several years presiding over small claims cases. Judge Baker served as a Superior Court judge in Monroe County and Judge Barteau was Boonville City Judge in Warrick County. They each have extensive experience at every level of the ju-dicial system. Chief Justice Shepard describes both as possessing “deep knowledge and understanding of

the Indiana justice system and the crucial role of impartial courts.”

The Small Claims Task Force con-ducted three public hearings during which it sought comments from the public about the practices and procedures of the Marion County Small Claims Courts. More than 200 local residents attended these hearings, held on February 22 in Perry Township, February 29 in Pike Township, and March 7 in Marion Circuit Court. About 50 individuals—including collection attorneys, landlords, tenants, small claims defendants, law students, pro bono attorneys, and a state sena-tor—testified before the Task Force. A certified court reporter attended each hearing to ensure a written, accurate transcript of the statements. The Task Force accepted additional written comments on the small claims courts until March 15 and is conducting a thorough research of the statues, rules, case law and other authorities relating to these courts.

The nine Marion County Small Claims Judges, under the leader-ship of Marion Circuit Court Judge Louis Rosenberg who has certain statutory responsibilities in regards to those courts, have also met and formed a plan of action in response to these allegations, including a plan to post brochures in all courtrooms detailing litigants’ rights and respon-sibilities. The Task Force hopes to complete the fact-finding process and submit any recommendations for rule changes to the Supreme Court’s Rules Committee by May 2012. Legislative recommendations will be forwarded to the Commis-sion on Courts.

Supreme Court Addresses Access to Justice Issues in the Small Claims Courts of Marion County


The Indiana Supreme has adopted a new rule of trial

procedure that provides trial courts special flexibility in handling mul-tiple cases involving the same family or household. Trial Rule 81.1, which became effective January 1, 2012, is based on the special rules, which have been available to courts participating in the Indiana Family Court Projects since the inception of the project in 1998. After the Family Court Project proved to be a success, the Indiana Supreme Court asked the Judicial Con-ference Juvenile Justice Improvement Committee and the Indiana Supreme Court Rules Committee to see if there are ways for all Indiana trial courts to avail themselves of the special Family Court Project Rules. Both committees endorsed the expansion of the Family Court Project Rules to all trial courts, and, after a public comment period, the Rules Committee proposed to the Supreme Court that it adopt T.R. 81.1.

Under certain conditions, Trial Rule 81.1 allows a judge to use “Family Procedures” and exercise jurisdiction over all cases involving the same fam-ily or household (as defined). Family Procedures are defined in the rule as the coordination of proceedings and processes, and information sharing among cases in a court or courts in-volving family or household members. The goal of the new rule is to avoid uninformed or inconsistent rulings in multiple cases involving one family or household and therefore better serve children and families in our courts.

Using the new rule:

• WhenacourtintendstouseFamilyProceduresforacase,itmustenteranordernotifyingallpartiestothiscaseofthecourt’sintentions.

• Apartyhas15daysafternoticeofthisorderissenttoobjecttohisorhercasebeingselectedtobeheardusingFamilyProcedures.

• Thiscourtorderalsoaffectsaparty’sabilitytorequestchangeofvenuefromthejudge.OnlythosemotionsforchangeofvenuepermittedbyIndianaTrialRule76maybegrantedforcauseoncethisnoticeissent.

• Within30daysafteracaseisse-lected,thecourtmustprovidealistofallcasesthecourtwillhearusingFamilyProcedurestoeachpartytoallthesecases.

• Thecourtcansetconcurrenthearingsonsomeissuesandruleontheadmissibilityofevidenceforeachseparatecase.

• WhenusingFamilyProcedures,ajudgemustchoosewhethertomaintaintheseparateintegrityanddocketnumbersforeachcasebuthearthecasestogetherorconsoli-dateafamily’scasesintoonecom-moncasenumberifmultiplecasesarebeingheardbeforeonejudge.

The new rule provides that cases to which Family Procedures are being applied can retain their separate case numbers OR be combined under one case number if multiple cases are being heard before one judge.

The recommended best practice is for courts to maintain the separate case numbers for the cases pulled into Fam-ily Proceedings.

The use of common case numbers could pose challenges to court case management systems, has the poten-tial to skew a court’s statistics, could cause confusion as to the burden and proof, and also could confuse parties on deadlines for when to file appeals and other pleadings. The confidential-ity of the records in cases joined under one case number can also become very problematic. Under Administrative Rule 9, the parties to a case have access to all the records in the case (except in certain situations such as protective orders). The new rule provides records excluded from public access remain confidential to the added parties, even if all cases are consolidated into a single case. This means that the record keeper will need to remember somehow which parties in a case can have access to which records.

For all of the above reasons, the Divi-sion of State Court Administration recommends that cases not be joined into one case number. This will mean that the court will have to enter simi-lar orders and make entries in each “bundled” case file and CCS.

If a court decides to consolidate mul-tiple cases into one, the court should pick one case that will remain as the primary case. The court must enter an order of consolidation and cause the order to be filed in the case filed for each consolidated case and noted on the CCS of each case. At the time of consolidation, the court must enter a statistical disposition for each of the case numbers except the one remain-ing. Only one case will remain as pending. The others must be counted as being disposed by “transferred out.”

BY LILIA G. JUDSON | EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATIONAND JEFFREY S. WIESE | STAFF ATTORNEY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

Trial Rule 81.1 ProceduresforCasesInvolvingFamilyorHouseholdMembers

Further questions about this issue may be directed to Jeff Wiese at (317) 232-2542 or [email protected].


In the September/October 2010 issue of the Indiana Court Times, we discussed the

differences between a Petition for a Restricted Driver’s License under In-diana Code 9-24-15 and a Petition for Judicial Review of a Habitual Violator Suspension under Indiana Code 9-30-10. One of those differences is the

BY JAMES R. WALKER | FORMER DIRECTOR OF TRIAL COURT MANAGEMENT, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

How much is the Toll for the Road to Relief from Driver License Suspension? It depends on which road you take.

type of court costs that are assessed. Regular civil costs are assessed for the former and infraction costs for the lat-ter. However, both of these proceed-ings are assigned a civil miscellaneous (MI) case type. Hmmm, this could be trouble. How does the clerk know which costs to assess?

We have a prepared the following easy-to-read chart to help clerks quickly distinguish which type of proceeding is being filed so that they can identify and charge the appropriate court costs. We encourage clerks working at the front counter where these matters are filed to keep this reference chart handy and refer to it when these sort of petitions are tendered for filing.

Petitions for Restricted License Because of Hardship Under IC 9-24-15 [Normal Civil Court Costs]

Petitions for Judicial Review of Habitual Violator Suspensions Under IC 9-30-10 [Infraction Court Costs]

Petition IC 9-24-15-2 allows a person whose driver’s license is suspended to file a verified petition for a restricted driving permit for the sole purpose of driving to and from work and in the course of employment during the period of suspension because, due to the nature of the person’s employment, the suspension would be an undue hardship and burden on the person’s family or dependents.

IC 9-30-10-6 allows a person who has been determined by the BMV to be an Habitual Traffic Violator to file a petition for judicial review.

Parties BMV is NOT a party; the case is docketed in the name of the petitioner against the prosecuting attorney of the county.

BMV is a party; summons in the manner of civil action. Prosecutor and BMV are to be served with summons and copy of the complaint. Prosecutor represents BMV in court. IC 9-30-10-7

Case Type MI MI

Costs IC 9-24-15-5(e) Court costs (including fees) for the action on the petition must be charged against the petitioner. The prosecuting attorney of the county is not liable or taxable for any costs (including fees) in any action under this chapter.

IC 9-30-10-7(f) Court costs (including fees) shall be assessed and paid by the petitioner at the time of filing in an amount equal to the costs (including fees) assessed in the enforcement of infractions. However, a petitioner who has the petitioner’s driving privileges reinstated under section 8 of this chapter is entitled to a refund of all costs paid.

Relief IC 9-24-15-6: Except when the court is required to grant the petition under 9-24-15-6.5, the court can either refuse to grant the petition or make a final determination in the form of a recommendation to the BMV that the person be granted a restricted driving permit.

IC 9-30-10-8: If the court finds the person is not an HTV, the court must order the BMV to reinstate the person’s driving privileges. If the court finds that the person is an HTV, the peson’s driving privileges remain suspended unless the Court places the person on probation under IC 9-30-10-9.


Ours is a state about which we have much to boast.

Yet it often goes against our Hoosier roots to do so. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard is no exception and as we cele-brate the Dwight D. Opperman Award, he will quickly state that his achieve-ment is actually a reflection of Indiana’s judiciary. However, it is clearly because of his leadership that we Indiana Judges have been able to envision a better judi-ciary for our state.

Included in the qualities required to be recognized with the prestigious Dwight D. Opperman Award is the ability to reinforce collegial ties within the judicial branch. As Indiana trial judges can tell you, the hallmark of the Chief

Justice’s gifts is his ability to engage in what can be best characterized as Collegial Leadership—a leadership that recognizes that we are his col-leagues, working together to improve our collective and individual service to Indiana citizens.

Through his leadership, new reforms and innovations have become the norm for Indiana. These reforms put our state at the forefront in many areas.

In any given year over 300 Indiana ju-dicial officers regularly meet in various committees to consider improvements in our practice. In the midst of this work the Chief Justice encourages us to stretch beyond conventional para-digms. In addition to standing com-mittees, the Chief Justice has sought our input on every innovation and pro-

posed reform. Through his leadership and this collaborative process we can employ Alternative Dispute Resolution, Family Courts, Drug Courts, Truancy Courts, Mental Health Courts, Child Support Guidelines, Protective Orders, pro se services, jury reform, family group decision making practices, de-pendency facilitation, and technologi-cal improvements that include collabo-ration with other agencies including the state police and the BMV. Just to name a few.

He is indeed a visionary leader who has chosen to walk with us as he leads.

By his collaboration with the other branches of government he has paved the way for us to secure much needed raises and improvements in pension plans. He has ensured that we, the

Editor’s Note: We bid adieu and bon voyage in this issue of Court Times to our leader as he embarks on the next leg of his remarkable life journey and career. We have no adequate words to express our deep grati-tude and warm admiration for all he has done in the 25 years that he has served as Indiana’s Chief Justice.

Because he has had such a lasting impact on the trial judges in Indiana, we are printing a tribute to him delivered by the Honorable Charles F. Pratt, Judge, Allen Superior Court, that includes the words and ob-servations of some of these judges. Judge Pratt spoke these words on April 14, 2010 in Indianapolis during the presentation of the American Judicature Society’s Sixth Annual Dwight D. Opperman Award for Judi-cial Excellence to Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard. An excerpted version of Judge Pratt's remarks follows.

Farewellto theChief

LEFT. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gives an emotional goodbye to Supreme Court employees during a staff-hosted retirement celebration. CENTER. Randall T. Shepard is sworn into office in 1985 by the late Gov. Robert D. Orr. RIGHT. Hon. Randall T. Shepard is sworn for his fourth term as Chief Justice in 2002 by late Gov. Frank O'Bannon.

Photo. Lindsey Borschel.


local trial judges, are granted a direct voice with the legislature in matters im-portant to the judiciary. He has never failed to provide Indiana Trial Judges with the needed support when we find ourselves at the precipice of controver-sial issues.

Possibly the greatest attribute that the Chief Justice brings to his Collegial Leadership is his humility. Today is one such example. In consideration of today’s recognition he e-mailed me:

“…so many of the things for which I was nominated are in fact accomplishments in which trial judges and court staff have played such important roles. I see this award as commending all of us in the Indiana judiciary for the many positive things that have been happening here…”

What he failed to say, however, was that we are only able to embrace reforms because he has empowered us to be so engaged. In addition, as new reforms prosper he is content to allow the local judge to receive the accolades.

Lest one may sense that my comments are simply my own, allow me to “walk” across Indiana through the comments I received from Indiana’s trial judges:

We begin our journey around Indiana at the northwest corner of our state:

JUDGE MARY HARPER, PORTER CIRCUIT COURT:

“Under his guidance, we now are able to assist individuals in our day-in and day-out case work. We are no longer seeing just defeat—that is those who re-offend or violate probation. Rather we are now able to congratu-late drug-free clients and we are able to watch the rebuilding of families. From the development of Mental Health Courts to Family Courts he has led us from a system of granting and denying to one of developing and helping.”

In nearby Lake County:

JUDGE MARY BETH BONAVENTURA, LAKE SUPERIOR COURT—JUVENILE DIVISION:

“Chief Justice Shepard is not just reactive to national trends but proac-tive in exploring and adopting trend setting procedures such as allow-ing cameras in the court rooms of juvenile courts for ground breaking projects: allowing young people and

parents to witness the results of poor choices and behaviors as it relates to juvenile delinquency and child abuse and neglect.”

Moving east across the state to Northeast Indiana:

JUDGE FRAN GULL, ALLEN SUPERIOR COURT:

“Indiana is leading the country in jury reform as a direct result of the Chief Justice’s leadership in examining jury trials across the state and the adop-tion of new jury rules.”

A few miles south of Allen County we enter Adams County:

JUDGE FRED SCHURGER, ADAMS CIRCUIT COURT:

“The Chief Justice has demon-strated himself to be pro-judge. I am amazed by his ability to dis-cern trends that are coming and to correctly determine where Indiana should be within those trends.”

LEFT. Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard gives an emotional goodbye to Supreme Court employees during a staff-hosted retirement celebration. CENTER. Randall T. Shepard is sworn into office in 1985 by the late Gov. Robert D. Orr. RIGHT. Hon. Randall T. Shepard is sworn for his fourth term as Chief Justice in 2002 by late Gov. Frank O'Bannon.

Continued on next page

Photo. Courtesy of the Indiana Supreme Court. Photo. Courtesy of the Indiana Supreme Court.


Travelling to Central Indiana:

JUDGE STEVEN DAVID, BOONE CIRCUIT COURT (NOW INDIANA SUPREME COURT JUSTICE STEVEN DAVID):

One of the Chief Justice's early State of the Judiciary addresses profound-ly influenced Judge Steve David:

“The Chief Justice encouraged us to step out from behind the bench, to have an impact as a community player and to take leadership risks for the benefit of the people we are elected to serve. His call to duty was not empty as he provided us with continued support in our steps to shift the paradigm of our office.”

And then to neighboring Indianapolis:

JUDGE TANYA PRATT, MARION SUPERIOR COURT (NOW FEDERAL COURT JUDGE TANYA PRATT, UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT, SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA):

“At the urging of Chief Justice Shepard, the State of Indiana launched an ambitious effort to increase the number of minority, low-income and non-traditional students in Indiana’s law schools. The Indiana Conference for Legal Education for Opportunity (ICLEO) has changed the face of the Indiana legal com-munity for over 11 years. Our Chief Justice has always encouraged and promoted diversity within the Indi-ana Judiciary. He has been extremely supportive of my career and offers wisdom, guidance and professional support to the judges who serve in the Indiana State judiciary."

Moving to the Southeast:

JUDGE JAMES HUMPHREY, SEVENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT, DEARBORN AND OHIO COUNTIES:

“Justice Shepard understands what it means to be a trial judge. He has given us the tools to make the pro-cess work and the discretion to get the cases tried.”

JUDGE ROGER DUVALL, SCOTT CIRCUIT COURT:

"The Chief Justice has made tremen-dous efforts to make new judges feel welcome and comfortable within the Judges Association. The services he has made available to new judges are extraordinary. As a personal example of that support I am grateful to recall a New Years Eve several years ago. The Chief Justice considered it a priority to brave a winter snow storm as he travelled to Scott County to swear in myself, another judge, and the prosecutor.”

We continue our travel to Southern Indiana:

JUDGE VICKI CARMICHAEL, CLARK SUPERIOR COURT NO. 1:

“The Chief Justice is one of those rare individuals who remembers a person’s name and knows some-thing about them. He always has a comment for new judges and young judges. Regardless of our status within the judiciary, he has always made a point to treat everyone with respect and fairness. As a result, our profession has been enhanced.”

We travel westward across to the central area:

JUDGE FRANCES HILL, MONROE CIRCUIT COURT, DIVISION 6:

“In 1997, Chief Justice Randall Shepard said in his State of the Ju-diciary that ‘a family court is a place where you deal with the whole family in a single courtroom regardless of the label.’ From that day forth, the Chief Justice has gently, but with dogged determination, advocated for innovative ways to serve our fami-lies and children in the court system. His imperative that we should always strive to better meet the needs of the people we serve, is the mark of excel-lence that he has stamped on the Indiana judiciary, and the yard stick I use to measure my own efforts as a Judge. I am proud and grateful that he has set the bar so high for each one of us.”

Then we go to Indiana’s southern tip—a place known well to Justice Shepard:

JUDGE BRETT NIEMEYER, VANDERBURGH SUPERIOR COURT:

“We’re proud he’s from Evansville. He’s made the state and his home town proud.”

Continued from previous page

LEFT. Members of the Supreme Court following Shepard's selection as Chief; left to right: Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Richard M. Givan, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Alfred J. Pivarnik. RIGHT. Chief Justice Shepard with seven of the eleven Justices with whom he served during his 27 years on the bench; left to right: Hon. Robert D. Rucker, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Theodore R. Boehm, Hon. Myra C. Selby, Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Steven H. David, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Frank Sullivan, Jr.

Photo. University of Notre Dame.

Back up along the western border to the central western area:

JUDGE SUSAN HENDERSON, FOUNTAIN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT:

“Over the years Chief Justice Randall Shepard has lead by example. He sets expectations for us and encour-ages creative thinking to prepare for problems that are yet only on the ho-rizon. He recognizes there is no one-size-fits-all and supports innovative programs that may become models for courts across the State.”

JUDGE JOHN RADER, WARREN CIRCUIT COURT:

“When I meet with judges from other states and discuss the resources we have available, they are amazed. The breadth of support that we have, thanks to the Chief Justice’s leader-ship, range from extraordinary judi-cial education to services that include judicial balance and the judicial as-sistance program—all of which work to help us do our jobs better. We are the envy of other state judiciaries.”

We end our tour in Indianapolis:

IN ACKNOWLEDGING THAT THE EMPLOYEES OF THE “SUPREME COURT ENTERPRISES” ARE PROUD TO BE ON HIS TEAM, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR LILIA JUDSON WROTE:

“When Chief Justice Shepard took the helm, his goal was to bring the Indiana judiciary to a place where other states would ask: “what does Indiana say and what has Indiana done?” Under his leadership, Indiana courts have reached and surpassed this goal. From an administrative perspective, Chief Justice Shepard’s visionary leadership has empowered our staff and the trial courts to imple-ment innovative ways to deal with the ever more challenging problems facing our courts. We are constantly improving the delivery of justice in Indiana because he never stops thinking about how we can do better. At the same time, his legal acumen and scholarship have brought a new level of respect and recognition for Indiana jurisprudence.”

JANE SIEGEL, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF THE JUDICIAL CENTER ADDS:

“In addition to delivering his vision, the Chief Justice ensures that we in the Supreme Court family are given the support we need to achieve these goals.”

This award recognizes, and these tes-timonials clearly demonstrate, that we are uniquely blessed as a judiciary to have a visionary leader at the helm. As a result, we are better judges and the people we are called to serve are the beneficiaries.

As we encounter the future, and the challenges it brings to our profession, we can be assured that we will have a voice in the required resolutions and we can be further assured that in our Chief Justice, we will have a leader who listens as a colleague.

Chief Justice Shepard, on behalf of the Indiana Trial Judges, we thank you and extend our heartfelt congratulations.

The reflections from Judge Pratt and the other trial judges represent just a small sampling of the deep regard in which the Chief Justice is held through-out Indiana.

LEFT. Members of the Supreme Court following Shepard's selection as Chief; left to right: Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Richard M. Givan, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Alfred J. Pivarnik. RIGHT. Chief Justice Shepard with seven of the eleven Justices with whom he served during his 27 years on the bench; left to right: Hon. Robert D. Rucker, Hon. Randall T. Shepard, Hon. Theodore R. Boehm, Hon. Myra C. Selby, Hon. Roger O. DeBruler, Hon. Steven H. David, Hon. Brent E. Dickson, and Hon. Frank Sullivan, Jr.

Photo. John Gentry.


Fountain County Circuit Court Judge Susan Orr Henderson Receives Greater Lafayette YWCA Woman of Distinction Award

Judge Susan Orr Henderson, Fountain County Circuit Court, has been selected by the Greater Lafayette YWCA as a “Woman of Distinction” for 2012. She was recognized at an award ceremony held on March 6, 2012 for her selfless commitment to community service and her willingness to meaningfully participate when asked and by showing what community involvement and leadership can accomplish.

State Court Administration Director of Appellate Court Technology Selected to National Board

Bob Rath, Director of Appellate Court Technology for the Indiana Supreme Court, Division of State Court Administra-tion, has been selected to serve on the Board of the Court Information Technology Officers Consortium (CITOC), which is an arm of the Conference of State Court Adminis-trators (COSCA) and is affiliated with the National Center for State Courts. It is an organization comprised of court chief information officers from around the country to assist Judicial Branch leaders in resolving business and technology problems.

Charles M. Kidd Named Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission Deputy Executive Secretary

Indiana Supreme Court Disciplinary Commission Execu-tive Director, G. Michael Witte appointed Charles M. Kidd as Deputy Executive Director. Mr. Kidd was a Staff Attorney at the Commission from April 1991 until his appointment as Deputy last November. He also served as an Indiana Deputy Attorney General. He received his undergraduate degree from Butler University and his law degree from Indiana University Robert H. McKinney School of Law. He serves as Chair of the Indiana State Bar Association’s Lawyer Advertis-ing Rules Review Committee. Kidd is also a Former Master member of the Sagamore American Inn of Court. He is the author of numerous continuing legal education works.

Indiana Team Attends National Leadership Summit on School-Justice Partnerships: Keeping Kids in School and Out of Court

The first of its kind Summit on School-Justice Partnerships took place in New Your City on March 11-13, 2012. It was convened by former New York Chief Justice Judith S. Kaye and organized by the New York State Permanent Judicial Commission on Justice for Children. Supreme Court Jus-tice Steven David, Porter Circuit Court Judge Mary Harper, Hamilton Superior Court Judge Steven Nation, Dr. Rich Hogue, Assistant Superintendent for Learning with the Indiana Department of Education, and Lilia Judson, Execu-tive Director of the Division of State Court Administration, made up Indiana’s team. The Summit brought together court and school leaders from 45 states and three territories, and offered 38 presentations and opportunities for state teams to plan for ways to keep children in school and out of the juve-nile justice system.

The goal of the Summit was to promote team collabora-tion on cross-systems services that would prevent children's involvement in the justice system in the first instance and— for children who do get involved—provide off ramps from successive, worsening encounters. The Summit showcased a growing body of research and evidence-based alternatives that indicate suspensions and expulsions are not effective in improving student behavior and are significantly associated with drop out and involvement in the juvenile and criminal justice system. The data presented indicates that kids discon-nected from their familiar school environments (whether by suspension, expulsion, arrest, or dropping out) are at much greater risk of following a path to crime and prison. Effective school-justice partnership efforts can go a long way to help children stay in school and out of the path to incarceration. Indiana’s team discussed ways the Department of Education and juvenile courts could improve communications, improve ways to share information and initiate cross training.

SPOTLIGHT

Left to Right: Hon. Steven Nation; Lilia Judson; Dr. Rich Hogue; Hon. Mary Harper; and Hon. Steven David.

Photo. Courtesy of Lilia Judson.


Mark Massa: 107th Indiana Supreme Court Justice

The Hon. Mark Massa, formerly the Executive Director of the Indiana Criminal Justice Institute, took the oath of of-fice as Indiana’s 107th Justice on April 2, 2012. The private oath was administered by former Chief Justice Randall T. Shepard, who is now a Senior Judge for the Indiana Court of Appeals. A public, formal swearing-in ceremony will be held on May 7, 2012.

Indiana Governor Mitch Daniels named Justice Massa to succeed Chief Justice Shepard who retired from the Court. Justice Massa served as a law clerk for Chief Justice Shepard from 1991-1993. Shepard congratulated his successor and said, “I know the Supreme Court Justices, Agency Directors and staff warmly welcome Mark Massa to the Court.”

Justice Massa pointed to Shepard’s valuable leadership as a reason his appointment to the Court is so meaningful. “What an incredible honor to be joining this Court. Under the Chief Justice’s guidance, it has become one of the leading state courts in the nation, and I’m humbled to be a part of it.”

In February, the Judicial Nominating Commission held two rounds of public interviews of the fifteen applicants for the position and voted to send Mr. (now Justice) Mark Massa, the Hon. Cale Bradford and Ms. Jane Seigel to the Governor as finalists. Governor Daniels selected Massa as Indiana’s 107th justice. The Commission will select the next Chief Justice from among the five justices on the Court.

Division of State Court Administration Puts New Focus on Domestic Violence

The Indiana Supreme Court’s Division of State Court Ad-ministration has a new resource available for judges handling cases involving domestic violence. The Division recently received a STOP (Services-Training-Officers-Prosecutors) Violence Against Women grant to create a new position within the office to function as a single point of contact on domestic violence law and the judicial areas it affects.

The newly created position of Domestic Violence Resource Attorney will provide technical assistance to judicial officers and court staff, develop training and written materials for ju-dicial officers, promote communication among courts on best practices, and provide assistance and support to local courts interested in developing domestic violence programs.

In addition to working with judges, the Domestic Violence Resource Attorney will also reach out to both governmental and non-governmental agencies to promote interagency col-laboration to address responses to domestic violence. One of our top priorities over the past year has been our partnership with the Indiana Judicial Center and the Indiana Coalition Against Domestic Violence to develop a six-hour training entitled How Family Violence Impacts You and Your Courts. The training debuted at the Spring Judicial Conference in April, and it will be repeated at three regional locations in October. The tentatively scheduled dates and locations are:

• Friday, October 12, at the Inn at DePauw (formerly Walden Inn), Greencastle, IN

• Friday, October 19, at Springmill Inn, Mitchell, IN

• Friday, October 26, at Swan Lake Resort, Plymouth, IN

For more information, please contact Domestic Violence Resource Attorney Loretta Oleksy at (317) 233.0784 or [email protected].

Photo. Courtesy of Hon. Mark S. Massa.


This is the eighteenth of our Court Times articles that highlight up close and per-sonal a member of the Indiana Judiciary.

Vanderburgh County Superior Court, Judge Wayne S. Trock-man is our judge featured

in this issue. He received his under-graduate degree from the University of Southern Indiana University and his law degree from Indiana Univer-sity Robert H. McKinney School of Law. Judge Trockman was engaged in the private practice of law from 1985 through 1999 as a partner with New-man, Trockman, Lloyd, Flynn & Rhein-lander in Evansville. He was Assistant Attorney for the City of Evansville from 1991 through 1998. Judge Trockman was appointed to the Vanderburgh Superior Court bench in December of 1998 by Governor Frank O’Bannon and was elected to a six-year term on the bench beginning 2001. He was re-elected for another six-year term beginning 2007.

Judge Trockman has been past Presi-dent of the Evansville Bar Association; past President of Brooks American Inn of Court; past President of Vander-burgh County Election Board; Member Vanderburgh County Community Correction Advisory Board (1991-pres-ent); past President of Evansville Board of Park Commissioners; and, past Chairman of Vanderburgh County Law Library Foundation. Judge Trockman served as Chief Judge of Vanderburgh Superior Court from 2003 until 2008. He has also been involved in numerous community activities, including Uni-versity of Southern Indiana Foundation since 1989, Pigeon Creek Greenbelt Committee since 1990, past Chair-

man of Mesker Park Zoo Foundation, Adath B’Nai Temple Executive Board (1991-95), (2001-present), member of the Board of Directors of Youth First, an organization committed to the needs of the youth in the community (2002-present), and member of the Board of Directors of United Caring Shelters, Inc. (over 25 years). He was also awarded the Willie Effie Thomas Human Relations Commission Award in 2001 for his lifetime commitment to human and civil rights. In 2003, Judge Trockman was awarded the Doran E. Perdue Evansville Bar Association Service Award for his community lead-ership and activities with the Lawyers and Judges Assistance Program (JLAP). In May, 2004, Judge Trockman was awarded the James Bethel Gresham Freedom Award by the Evansville Bar Association in recognition of his public service to the community and also received the Jefferson Award in 2004 from the American Institute for Public Service. In January 2011, Mayor Weinzapfel presented the Key to the City of Evansville to Judge Trockman for his community service and work in establishing the first certified Re-Entry Program in the State of Indiana.

Judge Trockman has involved himself in many extra-judicial activities since his appointment to the bench in 1998. He is Chairman of the Indiana Judicial Center Court Administered Alcohol and Drug Program Committee and serves as Chairman of the Problem Solving Courts Committee. He is also a member of the Board of Governors of the Indiana Judicial Center and remains active in the Evansville Bar Association where he serves on the Im-paired Lawyers and Judges Committee.

Since 2006, Judge Trockman has served as Co-Chair of the Volunteer Lawyer Association of Southwest Indiana which provides pro-bono legal services to the poor in 13 counties served by the district. In 2009, Judge Trockman re-ceived The Randal T. Shepard Pro Bono Award “in recognition of extraordinary efforts toward making legal services available to persons who otherwise could not afford them.”

Judge Trockman organized and imple-mented the first drug treatment court in Vanderburgh County and the first certified Treatment Court in the State of Indiana and he operates Indiana’s first Certified Re-Entry Court. He was named “Judge of the Year” for 2009 by the Indiana Correctional Association. Judge Trockman was named by the Governor and Supreme Court Chief Justice to serve on the “Justice Rein-vestment Steering Committee” which worked closely with the PEW Chari-table Trust in creating a proposal to the Indiana General Assembly on sentenc-ing reform. It was designed to increase public safety, reduce recidivism and break the cycle of crime with these offenders by shifting drug and alcohol addicted individuals from the Depart-ment of Corrections to Community Based Treatment Programs.

On April 12, 2011, the National Association of Drug Court Profes-sionals presented to Judge Trockman the NADCP Community Transition Award (NADCP’s highest honor) at the ten-year anniversary Drug Treatment Court graduation.

Judge Trockman was born in Evansville and has been married to his wife, Jill, for 25 years. Judge Trockman and his wife have two sons, ages 20 and 22.

SIDEBAR BY JAMES F. MAGUIRE | STAFF ATTORNEY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

Hon. Wayne S. Trockman


What do you like most and least about being a trial court judge?

What I like most are those opportu-nities to not only hold accountable, but help non-violent individuals who find themselves in the criminal justice system. I have found that the best way for me to do this is through the Drug Court, Forensic Diversion Program, and Re-Entry Court which I estab-lished in our County approximately 11 years ago. What I like least about being a trial court judge is the revolving door of crime and the domestic cases where parents lose their better judgment re-garding their children’s best interests.

What was your major in college and why did you decide to study law?

My major in college was finance and the main reason I decided to study law was that I admired my father who prac-ticed law in Evansville for over 40 years until his untimely death.

What would you do if you were not a judge?

I would return to the practice of law, which I enjoyed immensely.

Who are the people you most admire?

I admire individuals who are charita-ble with their time, talents and money, and who seek no recognition for what they do.

What are your hobbies or favorite leisure activities, and how did you first get involved?

I suppose that riding motorcycles has al-ways been my favorite leisure activity. I competed in Enduro and Hare Scramble races when I was young and I enjoyed riding off-road with my children for many years. I’ve also traveled the coun-try and through France (Normandy) by motorcycle. My other favorite hobby is restoring cars from the “glory days” of the 60’s and 70’s. I have restored two Pontiacs; one a ’67 GTO and the other a ’78 Trans Am. More than anything, I enjoy spending time with my wife and two boys who are both in college.

What are your favorite books, and have you read any recently, or are read-ing now, that you would recommend?

My favorite books are about U.S. his-tory, especially World War II. I am currently reading an International Best Seller by Antony Beevor entitled D-Day.

Where did you grow up and how would you de-scribe your childhood?

I grew up in Evansville, Indiana as one of a family of six. I am the second of four and all boys except for my sister who is the youngest. I had a wonderful childhood with a lot of good memories.

Do you have a favorite quote(s)?

My favorite quote is actually a por-tion of a short speech by Theodore Roosevelt which is titled “Man In The

Left to right: Josh, Jill, Judge Trockman and Ben. Judge Trockman describes the photo: "Our dog is Liberty. My youngest son is Josh (age 21). He is currently a junior at IU and plans to attend law school at IU. My wife’s name is Jill. My oldest son is Ben (age 23) who attends the University of Southern Indiana majoring in communications. The dog is an Australian Shepherd whose name is Liberty or Libby for short. We named her Liberty in 2001 when she was born after the 9/11 attack. The car is a 1967 Pontiac GTO H.O. It is 100 percent original. I purchased it in 1997. It had a tree growing through the driver’s side floor pan, but has been restored to the condition depicted in the photograph. I did all of the restoration except for the paint job. I am currently restoring a 78 Pontiac Trans Am."

Continued on page 19

Photo. Courtesy of Hon. Wayne S. Trockman


When a judge is required to impose a criminal sentence on an individual, it is done knowing that the decision made will impact many people and many institutions. A judge wants all of the information available in order to make a fair, just and intelligent ruling. Probation officers and judges work together in carrying out this significant responsibility. Through advances made in technology and in our ability to share information more widely and more readily, our courts have improved tools necessary to perform these tasks.

The Judicial Conference of Indiana is a statutorily created body consisting of all of the trial, appellate, and senior judges serving in Indiana. A board of directors guides their activities, which are carried out by the Indiana Judicial Center. In Indiana, probation services are housed within the judiciary, and probation offi-cers work for and at the direction of the judges who employ and supervise them. The Indiana Legislature directed the board of directors of the judicial confer-ence to prescribe minimum standards for the Presentence Investigation (PSI) report that probation officers prepare and Indiana judges use when impos-ing sentences. The purpose of the PSI report is to compile an offender’s social and legal history. The trial judge uses the PSI as a tool in determining sentenc-ing options.

During 2011, the Indiana Judicial Center and the Judicial Conference Probation Officer Advisory Commit-tee revised the existing PSI report to incorporate additional information (see chart) including information from the Indiana Risk Assessment System

(IRAS) for adults. (See prior articles on risk assessment in March/April 2011 and September/October 2011 issues of Indiana Court Times.) These risk assessment tools are used at key stages in the criminal justice process to assess

the offender’s risk to reoffend and to determine the level of supervision and resources appropriate for addressing the particular risks. The risk assess-ment tools were automated in 2011 enabling courts and law enforcement unprecedented ways to share informa-tion. They are part of the Indiana Supreme Court’s secure website known as INcite (Indiana Court Information

Technology Extranet) which thousands of people use to collect and exchange information with each other and with others who need and use court infor-mation.

On November 7, 2011, the Judicial Technology and Automation Com-mittee (JTAC) staff of the Division of State Court Administration deployed the PSI application during a pilot phase to five Indiana probation departments in the following counties: Marion, Tippecanoe, Monroe, Dearborn, and Blackford. On January 3, 2012, the PSI application was launched statewide to over 930 probation officials. By the end of February, 2012 probation officers had completed 2,300 PSI reports in INcite. The Judicial Conference Board of Directors requires that all probation departments utilize the new INcite PSI application.

Probation officers across the state can view completed PSI reports and, when dealing with repeat offenders, officers have the ability to create a new PSI report using information stored within INcite from previous reports. The abil-ity to collect, store and share informa-

BITS & BYTES BY MARY L. DEPREZ DIRECTOR AND COUNSEL FOR TRIAL COURT TECHNOLOGY, STATE COURT ADMINISTRATION

New INcite Application for Presentence Investigation Goes Live Statewide

“ Just did my first PSI on the new system…and I love it!”—Cathy Knight

Probation Officer, Miami County


tion that is needed repeatedly becomes invaluable when compiling the legal history of an offender. Prior to the automated PSI application, probation officers were completing PSI reports independently and not sharing com-pleted reports with other departments throughout the state.

After using the PSI application for the first time, Cathy Knight, a Probation Of-ficer with the Miami County Probation Department, declared “Just did my first PSI on the new system…and I love it!”

In January 2012, a group of stakeholders joined efforts with the Division’s JTAC staff and began work on the next phase of this project—a standard, electronic version of the Abstract of Judgment. Information from the PSI report will be pulled into the Abstract of Judgment, creating a legible document, avoiding duplicate data entry, and ensuring the

accuracy of the information. The trial court will be able to attach the Judgment of Conviction and the Sentencing Order to the Abstract. By statute, the PSI report, the Abstract of Judgment and the Sentencing Order must be submitted to the Indiana Department of Correction (DOC) whenever a convicted person is sentenced to a DOC facility. Using INcite, DOC staff will be able to retrieve the PSI report, Abstract and Sentencing Order directly from the INcite Appli-cation. This will result in cost savings, more efficient communication between courts and DOC, and fewer resources expended to track down missing paper-work. And, when the Abstract of Judg-ment application is used by all courts on a statewide basis, comprehensive conviction and sentencing information will be readily available to prosecutors, judges, legislators, policy makers and the general public.

Arena” in which he speaks of those who spend themselves in a worthy cause. These “who strive valiantly, who at the best knows the triumph of high achievement, and who at the worst, if he fails, at least fails while daring greatly . . .”

Continued from page 17

Hon. Wayne S. Trockman

Where is your favorite va-cation spot?

My favorite vacation spot is in Parkland near Boca Raton in southern Florida where my family goes on a regular basis to visit my sister.

Do you have a favorite meal, recipe, and restau-rant?

My favorite restaurant is in Ridgway, Colorado named “True Grit.” Portions of the John Wayne movie for which it was named were filmed in front of the restaurant. I have ridden my motor-cycle there a number of times.

On March 19, 2012, House Enrolled Act 1200 was signed into law by Governor Mitch Daniels. This law adds section 31 to Indiana Code 35-38-1 and states in part that “if a court imposes on a person convicted of a felony a sentence that involves a commitment to the department of correction, the court shall complete an abstract of judgment in an electronic format approved by the department of correction and the division of state court administration.” Using JTAC’s INcite Abstract of Judgment applica-tion, courts will be able to comply with the new law. JTAC will make this application available on or before July 1, 2012, the effective date of the new electronic reporting provisions.

The defendant's overall risk assessment level and the level for each domain section is included in the PSI Report.


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 Administration

David J. Remondini, Managing Editor Chief Deputy Exec. Dir., State Court Administration

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 [email protected].

CONTRIBUTORS

Hon. Charles F. Pratt Allen Superior Court

Lilia G. Judson Executive Director, State Court Administration

Mary L. DePrez Director and Counsel for Trial Court Technology, State Court Administration

James R. Walker Former Director of Trial Court Management, State Court Administration

Adrienne Meiring Counsel to the Indiana Commission on Judicial Qualifications

James F. Maguire Staff Attorney, State Court Administration

Jeffrey S. Wiese Staff Attorney, State Court Administration

The Indiana Court Times is available online at indianacourts.us/timesIf you like the online version better than the magazine, you can unsub-scribe from the paper version by emailing Yolanda Collins at [email protected].

Subscribe to the Court Times online by email or with the RSS reader of your choice.

Follow Indiana Courts on Twitter at twitter.com/incourts

Watch videos at the Indiana Courts channel at youtube.com/incourts

PLEASE CIRCULATE TO CO-WORKERS

This newsletter reports on important administrative matters. Please keep for future reference.

Stay Connected


Documents

Indiana Court Times 21.2