Summary
The Indiana Supreme Court held that an interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay trial-court proceedings for purposes of Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C). Because the State did not formally obtain a stay until after the one-year period had expired, the time continued to count against the State and Brandon Battering was entitled to discharge.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether an interlocutory appeal automatically stays trial-court proceedings for purposes of tolling the one-year limitation in Indiana Criminal Rule 4(C).
- Whether the State's request for a continuance, without a formal request for and order granting a stay, tolled the Rule 4(C) one-year period.
- Whether Battering was entitled to discharge because the Rule 4(C) one-year limitation expired before the proceedings were formally stayed.
Holdings
- An interlocutory appeal does not automatically stay trial-court proceedings. Under Appellate Rule 14(H), proceedings are stayed only when the trial court or a judge of the Court of Appeals so orders.
- A continuance is not a stay for purposes of Criminal Rule 4(C). The Rule 4(C) clock continues to run against the State until a formal stay is requested and granted.
- Battering was entitled to discharge because the State exceeded Rule 4(C)'s one-year limitation before the proceedings were formally stayed.
Key quotations
“The State’s motion for continuance was not a stay under Criminal Rule 4(C). Battering is, therefore, entitled to discharge.” (7)
“Importantly, however, “the time for an interlocutory appeal is excluded from Rule 4(C)’s limitation only when trial court proceedings have been stayed.”” (8)
“The words of the applicable rules could not be any clearer: The State needed to request—and be granted—a stay of the proceedings in order to toll Rule 4(C)’s one-year limitation.” (9)
Factual background
The State charged Battering on December 4, 2015, with Level 1 felony child molesting, Level 4 felony child molesting, and Level 5 felony child solicitation. Before trial, Battering moved to suppress evidence obtained during a police interrogation, and the trial court granted the motion on January 19, 2017. The State sought an interlocutory appeal and asked the trial court to continue the January 24 trial rather than formally stay the proceedings; the trial court did not formally stay the proceedings until June 15, 2017. Battering argued that the Rule 4(C) one-year period continued to run until the formal stay and therefore entitled him to discharge.
Procedural history
The State charged Battering with three child-related offenses. The trial court suppressed evidence obtained during a police interrogation, after which the State sought certification for an interlocutory appeal and requested a continuance rather than a stay. The trial court continued the trial, but the proceedings were not formally stayed until June 15, 2017, after Battering moved for discharge. Following the Court of Appeals' affirmance of the suppression ruling, Battering renewed his Rule 4(C) motion; the trial court denied it, the Court of Appeals affirmed, and the Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer and vacated the Court of Appeals' opinion.
Remand instructions
The trial court's denial of discharge was reversed, and Battering was ordered discharged.