Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana
2013 Ind. LEXIS 475
| Ind. | 2013Background
- Fry, charged with murder in Cass County (2011), sought bail arguing State’s evidence was circumstantial and the statute placing the burden on the defense was unconstitutional.
- Trial court required the State prove proof evident or presumption strong before Fry’s burden shifted; Fry was denied bail.
- Indiana Const. art. 1, §17 allows bail for offenses other than murder/treason unless proof is evident or presumption strong.
- Indiana Code § 35-33-8-2(b) assigns the defense the burden to prove admissibility to bail; Fry challenged this as unconstitutional.
- Court holds the burden should be on the State to show denial of bail, but affirms Fry’s denial of bail given the case’s facts.
- Court discusses historical, procedural, and constitutional context including grand jury indictments and habeas practice to justify the shift in burden and articulate the new standard for bail denial
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Who bears the burden to deny bail in murder cases under Article 1, §17? | Fry: defense should bear burden based on statute and precedent | State: defense bears burden due to traditional Rule | Burden lies with the State to show denial of bail |
| Constitutionality of Indiana Code § 35-33-8-2(b) | Statutory burden on defendant violates presumption of innocence | Statute aligned with prior case law | Statute unconstitutional as applied; burden shifted to State |
| What standard constitutes proof evident or presumption strong? | State-proffered standard should resemble existing evidentiary levels | State must meet a higher threshold than probable cause | State must prove by preponderance that proof is evident or presumption strong (not merely probable cause) |
| Can grand jury indictment serve as prima facie proof to deny bail? | Indictment should not be sole basis for denial | Indictment historically supported bail-denial in murder cases | Indictment alone cannot justify denial; State must present competent evidence |
| Remand necessity and impact on Fry’s case and future bail rulings | Record sufficient; no remand necessary | Court should remand for further proceedings | No remand; appellate review confirms denial of bail under clarified standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Phillips v. State, 550 N.E.2d 1290 (Ind. 1990) (right to bail and presumption of innocence context in murder cases)
- Bozovichar v. State, 230 Ind. 358, 103 N.E.2d 680 (1952) (bail decision balancing liberty and trial readiness in murder cases)
- Ex parte Heffren, 27 Ind. 87 (1866) (early case placing burden on defendant to show entitlement to bail in murder context)
- Ex parte Jones, 55 Ind. 176 (1876) (indictment context; defendant bears burden to show proof not evident or guilt not strong)
- Konigsberg v. Roth, 164 A.2d 740 (N.J. 1960) (discussion of burden-sharing and presumption of innocence in bail decisions (non-Indiana))
- Roth v. State, 258 Or. 428, 482 P.2d 740 (1971) (injury to standard for bail denial; illustrative of ‘strong’/evident standard in Oregon)
- Arthur v. State, 390 So.2d 717 (Fla. 1980) (Florida’s “proof is evident or presumption great” standard cited in analysis)
- Simpson v. State, 85 P.3d 478 (Ariz. 2004) (three-tier approach to the burden; rejected fair likelihood and beyond reasonable doubt; favored substantial showing)
- Haynes (In re Haynes), 290 Or. 75, 619 P.2d 632 (Or. 1980) (rejected ‘fair likelihood’; preferred stronger standard than probability)