In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana
2012 Ind. App. LEXIS 298
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Parents appeal a trial court order granting the State's use-immunity petition to compel their testimony about the birth of S.C.'s infant and injuries observed.
- Subpoenas were issued to force Parents to testify; they sought to quash on self-incrimination grounds.
- After the subpoenas were quashed, the State obtained use immunity and ordered Parents to testify; Public defenders were appointed though no charges existed.
- The central issue is whether a prosecutor may grant use immunity in a pre-charge investigation without a grand jury when there is no indictment or information.
- Indiana law limits statutory use immunity to grand jury contexts (Ind. Code § 35-34-2-8) and post-indictment/information settings (Ind. Code § 35-37-3-1 to -3), creating a tension with pre-charge investigative authority.
- The trial court concluded prosecutors have the same authority as grand juries to grant use immunity pre-charge; the court relied on Indiana Bell and related authorities.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May a prosecutor grant use immunity in a pre-charge investigation without a grand jury? | Parents contend immunity authority requires a grand jury or post-charge context. | State contends investigators have grand-jury-like powers and can grant use immunity pre-charge. | Yes; trial court correct; immunity authority extends pre-charge. |
| Does Indiana Bell limit pre-charge use immunity to grand jury settings? | Parents argue Indiana Bell should limit use immunity to grand jury contexts. | State relies on parallel investigatory powers to grand juries to justify pre-charge immunity. | No; Indiana Bell does not restrict pre-charge immunity to grand jury contexts. |
| Is there statutory support for use immunity pre-charge outside grand jury or indictment/information settings? | Parents emphasize §§ 35-37-3-1 to -3 require post-indictment information for use immunity. | State argues only two statutes directly address use immunity but do not preclude pre-charge application when necessary to investigate. | Yes; the court recognizes limited statutory support but affirms use-immunity authority pre-charge. |
| Should the pre-charge use-immunity ruling be reviewed for abuse of discretion or de novo as a pure question of law? | Parents rely on standard reviewing for quash orders. | State argues de novo review for pure questions of law after undisputed facts. | De novo review; issue is pure question of law. |
| Does the State's reliance on Brune v. Marshall and similar authorities foreclose use immunity pre-charge? | Parents cite Brune to limit prosecutor powers to statutory enumerations. | State asserts broader investigative powers parallel to grand jury allow pre-charge immunity. | No; Brune does not bar pre-charge use immunity; courts may interpret powers beyond strictly enumerated duties. |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Peters, 637 N.E.2d 145 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (rulings on quash motions and use immunity in certain contexts)
- Brune v. Marshall, 350 N.E.2d 663 (Ind. App. 1976) (prosecutor has only powers enumerated by statute; no residual common-law authority)
- Indiana Bell Tel. Co. v. State, 409 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. 1980) (investigatory powers parallel grand jury; implications for use immunity)
- In re Gardner, 713 N.E.2d 346 (Ind. Ct. App. 1999) (deposition context; use-immunity considerations)
- Lucas v. State, 499 N.E.2d 1090 (Ind. 1986) (pre-trial deposition use immunity considerations)