In Re: Prosecutor's Subpoena Regarding S.H. and S.C. S.H. v. State of Indiana
984 N.E.2d 630
| Ind. | 2013Background
- S.C. gave birth to an infant in Shelbyville; S.H. and S.C. were investigated for home birth and infant injuries; subpoenas to testify were issued May 13, 2011, before any charges or grand jury; use-immunity was granted after a motion to quash; new counsel for parents; no grand jury or indictment existed at the time; Indiana Bell questioned prosecutorial powers; court later reversed and remanded.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether prosecutor had authority to seek use immunity pre-charge | Schaefer Wieneke argues authority exists under pre-charge statutes | State contends authority under §33-39-1-4 or case law supports use immunity | Prosecutor had no statutory authority pre-charge |
| Whether Indiana Bell supports extending use immunity power pre-charge | State relies on parallelism with grand jury powers | Schaefer Wieneke urges limits to avoid constitutional overreach | Indiana Bell does not authorize pre-charge use immunity; disapproved as to this context |
| Proper statutory interpretation of use-immunity provisions | Prosecutor can invoke use immunity under §35-34-2-8(a) or §35-37-3-1 | Statutes apply only when grand jury or post-indictment context exists | Statutes apply only in grand jury or post-indictment contexts; not here |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Caito, 459 N.E.2d 1179 (Ind. 1984) (balance privilege with government’s need; immunity coextensive with privilege)
- Lefkowitz v. Turley, 414 U.S. 70 (U.S. 1973) (privilege must be rationally balanced with government interest)
- Indiana Bell Telephone Co. v. Disclose Records, 409 N.E.2d 1089 (Ind. 1980) (investigatory powers of prosecutor paralleling grand jury; subpoena duces tecum context)
- In re S.H., 969 N.E.2d 1048 (Ind. Ct. App. 2012) (lower court decision on immunity authority questioned)
- Oman v. State, 737 N.E.2d 1131 (Ind. 2000) (judicial oversight concerns in pre-charge investigations)
- Mounts v. State, 496 N.E.2d 37 (Ind. 1986) (legislative powers vs. constitutional limits of prosecutorial authority)
- Cooper Indus., LLC v. City of South Bend, 899 N.E.2d 1274 (Ind. 2009) (interpretation of legislative intent; plain meaning)
- State v. Oddi-Smith, 878 N.E.2d 1245 (Ind. 2008) (statutory construction guiding analysis)
- Sanchez v. State, 675 N.E.2d 306 (Ind. 1996) (standard for reviewing rulings on motion to correct error)