When people think of an appeal in a criminal case, typically they are thinking of an appeal of the final judgement, or outcome. An interlocutory appeal, however, occurs while the case is pending. An interlocutory appeal targets a ruling of the trial court judge before the case goes to trial. Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 14 lays out the framework for when interlocutory appeals are appropriate.
Indiana Rule of Appellate Procedure 14 spells out two scenarios in which an interlocutory appeal can occur. Under subsection A, the rule describes several scenarios in which the Court of Appeals will review a trial court order as a matter of right. This subsection of the rule pertains almost exclusively to civil matters. Most interlocutory appeals in criminal cases are governed by subsection B.
Subsection B of Rule 14 lays out the process for discretionary interlocutory appeals. Under this subsection, the trial court judge, as well as the Court of Appeals, have discretion in determining if the interlocutory appeal will be reviewed. The initiating party must file a motion in the trial court asking the judge to certify the order in question within 30 days of the issuance of the order. If the trial court judge agrees to certify the order, the Court of Appeals, in its discretion, may accept jurisdiction of the appeal and rule on the trial court judge’s order.
The purpose of an interlocutory appeal is to get an answer on an important issue in the case before trial so that the case may have a more efficient outcome. Consider the following example:
Defendant’s residence is searched pursuant to a search warrant. While executing the search warrant, the police find 10 pounds of marijuana. Defense counsel files a motion to suppress the search warrant because defense believes that the search warrant affidavit lacked probable cause for the police to search the residence. If the motion is granted, the 10 pounds of marijuana would be excluded (or kept out) as evidence at trial. The state, therefore, would have no evidence to present and would have to dismiss the case before trial.
However, after a hearing, the trial court judge denies the motion to suppress and will allow the 10 pounds of marijuana to be admitted at trial. The trial will last multiple days and will consist of 12 jurors from the community giving their time to hear the evidence in the case. The trial will also come at a great expense for the state of Indiana and several other cases ready for trial will be continued to a later date. Because the marijuana evidence will be presented at trial, defense will almost assuredly lose. The judge’s ruling on the search warrant will be the sole issue for the Court of Appeals on the Defendant’s appeal of the final judgement.
In the above example, defense would request an interlocutory appeal of the trial court judge’s order on the motion to suppress. If the Court of Appeals agrees with defense, and orders that the trial court judge should have suppressed the evidence from the faulty search warrant, then the state would have to dismiss the case prior to trial. On the other hand, if the Court of Appeals agrees with the trial court judge, upholds the warrant, and orders that the marijuana evidence should come in at trial, then defense would know where its argument stood with the Court of Appeals. There would subsequently be no point in going to trial, losing, and appealing the search warrant issue. Suffice to say, the interlocutory appeal, no matter which side the Court of Appeals agreed with, would eliminate the necessity of the time and expense of a trial.
Do you or someone you know have a case in which you believe an interlocutory appeal is appropriate? Contact the experienced attorneys at Banks and Brower anytime by calling us at (317) 870-0019 or by emailing us at info@banksbower.com.