Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Myla A. Eldridge
Clerk
Marion County, Indiana
STATE OF INDIANA
V.
VVVVVVV
HOLIDAY BURKE,
Defendant.
the Court dismiss the charging information filed in the instant case
as follows:
BACKGROUND
DISCUSSION
impartial jury, in the county in which the offense shall have been
and cause of the accusation against him, and to have a copy thereof; to
meet the Witnesses face to face, and to have compulsory process for
State of Indiana, 547 N.E.2d 1101, 1103 (Ind. Ct. App. 1989) (citation
Ind. Code § 35-34-1-4(a)(1) and (4) provide: "The court may, upon
or "(4) [t]he . . . information does not state the offense with sufficient
criminal code without providing any facts that enable the defendant to
must be dismissed. See, Robinson v. State, 232 Ind. 396, 112 N.E.2d 861
(1953).
3
The defendant has a right to require that a charge against
him be made with such certainty as will enable him to
distinguish it from other violations of the same statute, and
with such particularity as will enable him to anticipate the
proof which may be adduced against him and prepare to
meet it. Mayhew v. State (1920), 189 Ind. 545, 128 N. E.
599. The averments must be so clear and distinct that there
may be no difficulty in determining what evidence is
admissible thereunder. Mayhew 1). State, supra; Funk 11. The
State (1898), 149 Ind. 338, 49 N. E. 266; Padgett U. State
(1906), 167 Ind. 179, 78 N. E. 663; Large v. State (1928), 200
Ind. 430, 164 N. E. 263. The charge must be preferred with
such reasonable certainty as will enable the court and jury
to distinctly understand what is to be tried and determined,
and fully inform the defendant of the particular charge which
he is to meet. Large U. State, supra; It must be particular
and specific enough so that the grand jury may not base an
indictment on evidence of one crime and the petit jury base a
verdict on evidence of another. State of Indiana v. Brown
(1935), 208 Ind. 562, 196 N. E. 696.
See also, Bays U. State ofIndiana, 240 Ind. 37, 47, 159 N.E.2d 393, 398
the unlawful acts charged and further designates the particular felony
N.E.2d 109, 116 (Ind. Ct. App. 1983) (where assessor was accused of
the information which failed to inform the defendant of the names of the
App. 407, 409, 300 N.E.2d 356, 358 (1973) ('Facts constituting the crime
nature and cause of the accusation against him requires that every
material fact and essential element of the offense be charged with
at 46, 159 N.E.2d at 397. The essential elements requiring material facts
in the present case for Count I are that Ms. Burke 1) did knowingly 2)
voter registration forms handled by the IVRP yet it fails to provide any
fails to identify any material facts that would allow Ms. Burke to know if
registration forms. The State also fails to provide any material facts as to
time period during which the false form(s) were submitted, Further, the
show that the Marion County Courts have jurisdiction over this matter.
5
Under Count II of the information, the essential elements requiring
support of material facts are that Ms. Burke 1) did knowingly 2) make or
of one who did not give authority. Again, the State fails to identify the
specific voter registration form(s) that support the charge against Ms.
Burke, let alone their number, dates, locations and what Ms. Burke
actually did with respect to them. The State fails to identify the
not grant authority to utter the instrument. Indeed, the very wording of
the charge suggests that the State is simply guessing that she violated
person and/or by authority of one who did not give authority.” And yet
again, the State fails to allege any material facts that Ms. Burke acted
knowingly. Nor does the charging information provide any specific time
period during which this crime allegedly occurred nor does it provide a
needs to know the specific voter registration forms and/or illegal actions
the State is claiming so that she can determine if she had anything to do
6
with that particular registration form or if she committed
Constitution.
Shuai v. State of Indiana, 966 N.E.2d 619, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
ex rel. Ballard v. Bengston, 702 F.2d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing
Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 496, 33 L. Ed. 2d 83, 92 S. Ct. 2163 (1972)).
7
with that particular registration form or if she committed
Constitution.
Shuai v. State of Indiana, 966 N.E.2d 619, 626 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012).
ex rel. Ballard v. Bengston, 702 F.2d 656, 660 (7th Cir. 1983) (citing
Peters v. Kiff, 407 U.S. 493, 496, 33 L. Ed. 2d 83, 92 S. Ct. 2163 (1972)).
7
m
Defendant Holiday Burke respectfully requests that the Court
the U. S. Constitution.
Respectfully Submitted,
/ 3/ Karen Celestino—Horseman
Karen Celestino-Horseman (Atty. No. 15762-49)
Of Counsel, Austin 85 Jones, P.C.
One North Pennsylvania
Suite 220
Indianapolis, IN 46204
317/632—5633 (Office)
3 1 7/ 630— 1040 (Facsimile)
Karen@KCHorseman.com
I hereby certify that a true copy of the foregoing has been delivered
10