Bowles v. State

Summary

The Indiana Supreme Court affirmed Darius V. Bowles's convictions, holding that the law-of-the-case doctrine barred reconsideration of the trash-search issue under the later rule announced in Litchfield v. State. The court concluded that Bowles's pre-Litchfield constitutional challenge was not substantially the same claim required for retroactive application of Litchfield; two justices dissented.

Holdings

1. Bowles could not obtain the benefit of Litchfield because the claim raised before Litchfield was not substantially the same claim that would prevail under Litchfield.
2. The prior Court of Appeals decision resolving the validity of the search under the law existing at the time of the search was dispositive under the law-of-the-case doctrine.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Bowles could obtain the benefit of the new rule announced in Litchfield v. State concerning warrantless trash searches when his pre-Litchfield motion raised a different constitutional theory.
2. Whether the prior Court of Appeals decision in Bowles's interlocutory appeal was dispositive under the law-of-the-case doctrine.

Disposition

affirmed