Court Opinion

ID: 9716583
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 06:44:38.230718+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:23:46.972381
License: Public Domain

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
While I agree that Pigg has not demonstrated as a matter of law that Judge Bru-baker was actually biased and prejudiced against him or his defense, the facts and circumstances lead me to the conclusion that the appearance of justice would have been better served by the granting of Pigg's Motion for Change of Judge. See Board of Trustees of Public Employees' Retirement Fund v. Hill (1985) Ind., 472 N.E.2d 204. Nevertheless, cause for reversal has not been shown by the denial of the Motion. Furthermore, it is assumed that the retrial will be conducted before a different judge.
I concur in Judge Baker's opinion which holds that it was reversible error to sustain the State's objection to Pigg's questions concerning the informant's place of residence and employment. I also join Judge Barteau's separate opinion noting an apparent inconsistency in Indiana precedent with respect to the burden of showing an actual threat to the safety of the witness and with respect to prejudice occasioned to a defendant by failure to disclose such identity information.