Jay R. Thompson v. State of Indiana
2015 Ind. App. LEXIS 388
| Ind. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Thompson was convicted of two murders and conspiracy to commit burglary; the death sentence was later vacated and he received aggregate 120 years.
- Thompson filed a post-conviction relief petition in 1992 and made multiple amendments through 2006, but prosecutors delayed prosecution of the petition.
- In 2005 the State asserted laches due to delay in prosecuting the PCR petition; amendments continued to be filed by Thompson.
- A 2007 DNA test order and subsequent actions occurred, but Thompson did not prosecute the petition until 2012 when new counsel appeared.
- In 2013 Thompson filed a fifth amended PCR petition; the State renewed its laches defense, asserting prejudice from many witnesses and participants dying.
- The PCR court granted the State’s laches motion, and on appeal the Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed, holding laches applicable to delay in prosecuting a PCR petition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can laches bar a PCR petition based on delay in prosecuting the petition? | Thompson argues laches applies only to filing delay, not prosecuting delay. | The State contends laches can apply to prosecuting delay as prejudice and unreasonable delay are established. | Yes; laches may bar where delay in prosecuting is unreasonable and prejudicial. |
| Were Thompson's delays in prosecuting the PCR petition unreasonable and prejudicial to the State? | Thompson emphasizes delays were caused by complex filings and attorney changes, not intentional avoidance. | State shows prejudice from deceased witnesses and passage of time affecting defense. | Yes; the court found the delay unreasonable and prejudicial. |
| What standard governs reviewing laches determinations in PCR proceedings? | Thompson contends standard should limit laches analysis to timing between trial finalization and petition filing. | State relies on Douglas and Mast to permit consideration of prosecutorial-delay prejudice even when caused by multiple factors. | Standard is review of evidence supporting laches; the court affirmed the PCR court’s findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Douglas v. State, 634 N.E.2d 811 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (laches requires showing unreasonable delay and prejudice)
- Douglas v. State (second citation within same opinion), 640 N.E.2d 73 (Ind. Ct. App. 1994) (opinion correction on reh’g)
- Mast v. State, 914 N.E.2d 851 (Ind. Ct. App. 2009) (nearly twenty-year delays can support laches; dicta on prosecuting delay)
- Kindred v. State, 514 N.E.2d 314 (Ind. Ct. App. 1987) (eighteen-year PCR delay may be unreasonable)
- Thompson v. State, 492 N.E.2d 264 (Ind. 1986) (appeal related to original convictions and appellate review (cited for context))
- Twyman v. State, 459 N.E.2d 705 (Ind. 1984) (definition of laches as implied waiver from knowledge and prejudice)