Court Opinion

ID: 9721073
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 08:47:54.992827+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:23.286781
License: Public Domain

ON PETITION FOR REHEARING
In deciding this case, the Court held that the Marion County Sheriff’s Merit Board must permit reporters to record and photograph a hearing called for the purpose of considering discipline against an officer. We also concluded that the trial court correctly held that such hearings must be open to the public. Berry v. Peoples Broadcasting Corp. (1989), Ind., 547 N.E.2d 231 {Berry I).
The deputy sheriffs seek rehearing, calling to our attention a misstatement of fact. We noted that the Indiana Open Door Law, Ind.Code § 5-14-1.5-1 through 7, has been a part of our law since 1977 and that the pertinent section of the merit board law, Ind.Code § 36-8-10-11, was enacted in 1981. The dates of enactment seemed pertinent under the common maxim that the most recent legislative declaration on a subject prevails.
Counsel for the deputies correctly point out that while the present version of Ind. Code § 36-8-10 was passed in 1981, similar provisions existed in the code before the passage of the Open Door Law. Counsel argues that the earlier existence of the *235merit law means the statutes “do not permit the Merit Board to hold such hearings in executive session at its discretion.”
Of course, we observed that two maxims of statutory construction applied to this case. As often occurs, they suggested opposite outcomes. The other pertinent rule is that “statutes dealing with a subject in a detailed manner will supersede general subject statutes when the two cannot be harmonized.” Id, 547 N.E.2d at 234.
Notwithstanding these dueling maxims, we think the fair public hearing requirement of the merit law prevails over the permissive provision for executive sessions in the Open Door Law. The petition for rehearing is denied.
DeBRULER, GIYAN, and DICKSON, JJ., concur.
PIVARNIK, J., not participating.