Court Opinion

ID: 9709071
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 03:39:29.524921+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:45.785130
License: Public Domain

SHEPARD, Justice,
concurring.
The decision of the Court to return this case for a trial on the merits of several issues, including laches, is altogether appropriate.
Although the State urged that the judgment below could be upheld without a new trial, a part of the reason why I have joined today's action is my conviction that the *566evidence supporting a finding of laches is inadequate. While the trial judge might well have found that the appellant's delay in filing his petition was unreasonable under circumstances permitting diligence, the evidence offered by the prosecutor on the question of prejudice to the State was insufficient to establish an equitable bar. Other than the passage of time, the only specific prejudice cited in the State's brief or, apparently, offered at trial has been the disposal of those items of physical evidence kept in the Indianapolis Police Department property room. How the loss of these items damages the State's case is unexplained. Whether the other items of tangible evidence which were kept elsewhere are still available is also unexplored. We are not provided with any testimony about the availability of the witnesses or the investigating officer.
A new trial in this case may provide a more complete explanation of any damage done to the State's ability to present its evidence.
PRENTICE, J., concurs.