Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Mr. Lucky
-- There was no statutory provision before the Decision --

Yes, there was.

See the Indiana Supreme Court Barnes decision from September 20, 2011, which refers to section 35-41-3-2(b) of Indiana Code. This is the castle doctrine statute of Indiana, in force at the time of the rehearing, and at the time the Barnes decision was originally handed down by the Indiana Supreme Court.

See too, FR thread from May 2011, "Indiana Sheriff wants random house searches."

There is additional discussion at 40 Out of 50 Indiana State Senators Sign Amicus Brief Supporting Right to Use Force to Resist Unlawful Police Entry - Volokh Conspiracy - June 8, 2011.

The reason I recall this is that it was very strange for a state Supreme Court to -NOT- mention an applicable statute, in a decision that effectively struck the statute. The defendant in the case wanted a castle doctrine affirmative defense, and the decision said he could not have one, no matter what. But the decision did not mention, at all, the rights defendant had under an existing castle doctrine statute.

23 posted on 03/29/2012 2:45:36 PM PDT by Cboldt
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies ]


To: Cboldt
Excuse me, but you should actually read the case.

The defendant did not raise a statutory defense because the statute was clearly inapposite to the facts of this case. Take a look at IC 35-41-3-2 (e). The Defendant instead asserted his common law right which the Court acknowledged but then overruled.

26 posted on 03/29/2012 3:03:48 PM PDT by Mr. Lucky
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 23 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson