*1 it at realized themselves jurors the conversa Miller's dis- Judge in trial, As stated concerning the the time. place took tions in the decision visiting in of witnesses sent conduct the found prejudicial to facie prima jury case: present with the 323-24, 119 N.E.2d witness issue of to the at [A)s pertains Id. the defendant. stated: We results credibility, prejudice the prose- had with the during intermissions juror's association appellant If the from preju- jury room invisible go in the be an witness can permitted cutorial been members fraternize the visit and within (or bias) and festers dice have finder. properly fact the State mind jury, subconscious jury improprietous a mistrial. by an to declare caused moved The taint credibility of wit- should to remove. impossible may be association given their be weight conduct complained nesses [The given testimony the evidence from prejudicial such a present case was easy for all too trial, be and it would on the inflammatory nature-based influenced unconsciously to be jury the conduct persuasive effect probable friendly associa- by a matters to these witness assess ability to jury's for the State. witnesses tion with Kelley posi- in a place credibility-as (emphasis he should at to which grave peril 119 N.E.2d at tion of Id. and ... no added). subjected been have remedied could have a mistrial other Louisiana Similarly, in Turner which he into perilous situation LEd.2d S.Ct. 379 U.S. placed. reversed Supreme Court States the United conviction, finding 4-5) (em- extreme dissenting opinion at (slip opinion, the defendant's of two in the conduct original). inherent prejudice phasis associa had continual who witnesses police abused his judge trial agree. The three-day during jurors tion with mo- defendant's denying the discretion per with, conversing with trial-eating We therefore mistrial. tion for a The Court jurors. forming errands transfer, the decision vacate said: re- court and the trial Appeals, reverse jury attached credibility which [T]he a new trial. mand for key two wit these testimony of C.J., SHEPARD, determined inevitably have must nesses JJ., sent to concur. Wayne Turner GIVAN sure, credibility their To be his death. counsel Turner's assailed open court. through cross-examination went on of what potentialities
But three during the courtroom
outside have made may well days of WILLIAMS, Appellant more little proceedings courtroom Below), (Respondent formality. hollow than a LEd.2d at at 85 S.Ct. at WILLIAMS, Appellee Below). (Petitioner controlled to be this case We find 55S01-9006-CV-384. No. clear evidence Despite the lack Woods. jurors dis- security guard and Indiana. Supreme despite the proceedings cussed the 7, 1990. impartial- that their jurors' assertions three intact, enhancement
ity was witness prosecution's
credibility of regardless probable, highly
seems *2 Bradford, Indianapolis,
Daniel W. ap- pellant. Oliver, Stephen Oliver, A. Boren & Mar-
tinsville, appellee. DICKSON, Justice. appeal
Bonnie Williams initiated an chal- lenging order of the Mor- gan opin- In a Circuit Court. memorandum ion the Court of reversed the trial court, finding it lacked jurisdiction under the Uniform Child Custo- (UCCJA), dy Jurisdiction Act 31-1-11.6-1 to 24. Bonnie Williams and Charles - Williams were married in Illinois they where resided until 1982when Charles daughter moved to Indiana. Their Erma 25, 1974, August was born and their son Septem Ira was 1980. In born October ber, 1987, joined Erma father parties, mutual consent of the any judicial but without determination of custody. Ira continued to reside with Bon- September nie in Illinois. On (1980), Ind.App., 404 v. Clark and Clark petition filed among the Although not Indiana, seeking the custo- County, in dicto presented, asking that Bonnie Erma dy of authority to determine opined The cause Ira. matter of sub- dis- Act is a under Morgan Circuit venued *3 jurisdic rather jurisdiction jeet matter 1987, 18, marriage December on solved case, may be which particular over the tion hearing limited an uncontested following N.E.2d 388 Campbell, waived. of dissolution. the issue by agreement assumed Clark, reviewing court In regarding findings made The decree authority to that 2, discussion without February child. On either custody of equiva custody issues child determine for further request 1988, filed a Bonnie matter subject lent to of issues unresolved adjudicate hearing to by con cannot be conferred correctly noted held on hearing dissolution. County Ru parties. Decatur sent of court 1988, time the at which November v. Public Membership Corp. ral Electric dispute as whether inquired Ind.App. 275 (1971), 150 Co. Service on orders further to issue jurisdiction to its N.E.2d 857. support, visitation custody, issues of for the wife Counsel property settlement. re issue An almost identical jurisdiction of agree to "we responded regarding by this Court cently addressed court court," and the cor custody determination whether its had consented parties noted that marriage of of ollary to a dissolution regarding order an to enter jurisdiction a void amounted residents two Indiana Thereafter custody and child subject of the absence due to judgment at the hear- presented parties both Hight v. rel. ex jurisdiction. State an order entered trial court ing, Ind., (1989), 547 Superior Court property of determining the distribution possesses sub a court Onee N.E.2d 267. children both gen to consider jurisdiction ject matter entry after the until At all times Charles. juris case, its kind of class or eral Ira continued order, within the case of this diction Illinois. reside in Board to waiver. general class (now City) New Town Trustees of court, the Court reversing the trial In (1978), 268 Wayne Fort City Haven v. not parties could held that Appeals Hight In we 1112. N.E.2d Ind. 375 jurisdic- trial court's Indiana consent observed: eustody, and that child tion to determine (b) of November 31-1-11.5-8(a) home state em- Ira's because § juris- hear causes Illinois, lacked court to Indiana a trial power Custody sup- child Child Uniform diction under subject mat- petitioned has this port. Within Act. Jurisdiction power to is the jurisdiction ter transfer. 31-1-11.5-12), (Ind.Code support child § disagree because grant transfer 31-1-11.5-20), (Ind.Code § regarding Appeals the Court 81-1-11.5-24). (Ind.Code and visitation custody deter- Bonnie, seeking a action, filing the dissolution By [the wife] by ex- courts and Indiana mination subject matter the trial court's engaged such consenting to the pressly cases, dissolution claim that authority, waived decide authority to includes subject matter court lacked support and visi- of child jurisdiction. tation. trial court concluding that In N.E.2d at authority in this exercised not have Appeals Resolution custody proceeding, determining involves issue Campbell v. primarily relied falls within advanced the claim (1979), Ind.App. general scope conferred ignore court can requirements those when the constitution contesting parents agree or statute. jurisdiction. to its ex Young State rel. v. Noble The Court of majority Circuit correctly 263 Ind. legislative N.E.2d 99. sensed ruling intent here when to hear child cases jurisdictional requirements are, directly granted by not the UCCJA. Rath reason purpose they serve, er, 8(a) merely operates See. by contesting parents. to restrict the waivable existing power of courts to hear 81-1-11.6-8(a)
cases. begins: Ind.Code §
A court of this state competent which is
to decide child custody jur- matters has
isdiction to make child determi-
nation initial remodification decree if:
[emphasis added] The competency source of this to decide Ricky ROBEY, Appellant, L. matters is found in Ind.Code 81-1-11.5-20 grant and is an incidental Indiana, Appellee. authority within general STATE of LANE, Appellant, Michael actions for dissolution and child Hight, 547 N.E.2d at jurisdiction- 270. The al imposed by limitations the UCCJA are Indiana, Appellee. STATE of equivalent to declarations of 49S00-8801-CR-3, Nos. but rather are refine- 49S00-8801-CR-18.
ments of ancillary capacity of a trial court to exercise authority particu- over a Supreme Court of Indiana. lar case. This is waivable. voluntary
Because of the conduct of Bon-
nie in affirmatively engaging the Indiana
courts to determine
consenting to the trial court's
determine custody, we find that she has any question
waived regarding the authori-
ty of the court to decide the issue of eusto-
dy under the facts of her case and has thus
waived the trial court's case. granted. opinion
Transfer of the judg- vacated. The
ment of the trial court is affirmed.
SHEPARD, C.J., and GIVAN and JJ., concur.
DeBRULER, J., separate dissents with
opinion. Justice, dissenting. jurisdictional requirements
UCCJA 1.C. 81-1-11.6-8 are written to lasting
insure creditable and
decrees. This insurance if is sacrificed