Court Opinion

ID: 9713783
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 05:22:22.46017+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:20.525274
License: Public Domain

DeBRULER, Justice,
dissenting.
In Pennington v. State (1981), Ind., 426 N.E.2d 408, this Court construed 1.C. 85-44-8-6, the statute creating the crime of failure to appear, to apply to a person whose release from lawful detention was conditioned upon his appearance at a specified time and place. This construction of the statute forecloses as a matter of stare decisis the construction of the statute arrived at in the majority opinion. The release of a person from lawful detention on bail is not conditioned upon appearance at a specified time, but is instead conditioned upon an agreement to appear according to the terms of the recognizance bond, which in the case at bar here, according to the charging information, required appearance at all necessary times. The trial court is then required to give notice of specific trial and hearing dates to the surety, and a failure of the defendant to thereafter appear in court as required is declared to be a breach of the undertaking. I.C. 27-10-2-8. The purpose of the statute creating the crime of failure to appear and purpose of the statute permitting release upon the undertaking of sureties are the same, i.e., to motivate and secure attendance of the defendant in court. The eriminal statute fulfills the purpose when the defendant is released on his own recognizance. The undertaking by the surety fulfills this purpose when the defendant is released on the recognizance of another. As construed by Pennington, the crime of failure to appear does not apply to the circumstances described in the charge against appellant Korff.
When the statute creating the crime of failure to appear is properly restricted in scope, the prosecution makes a prima facie case at trial by presenting proof that the defendant did not appear at a time and place which was specified to him on his release from lawful detention. In that event, there is no need for the prosecution to call the defendant's former lawyer as a witness to testify about having given notice to his client, as is proposed by the prosecutor in this case. Having been unable to convince the Court of the validity of the above propositions, I turn to consider the question of privilege.
The Indiana statute renders advice given by a lawyer to his client privileged. I.C. 34-1-14-5. The rules of professional conduct enjoin lawyers from revealing information relating to representation of a client. Ind. Professional Conduct Rule 1.6. According to the Affidavit of Probable Cause, which appears in the trial record at page 07, the prosecution proposed to call appellant's former defense attorney to testify that "he told Mr. Korff of the time, place and date of his trial and, further told him that he needed to be there." In my opinion, this proposed testimony of the lawyer should be suppressed on the basis of appellant's claim of privilege. It is legal "advice" and "information relating to representation." I see nothing in the reasoning of the courts in other jurisdictions which detracts significantly from this conclusion. I therefore respectfully dissent.