Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana

Indiana Supreme Court

Decided June 25, 2013No. 09S00-1205-CR-361Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partMassa, Justice

I agree with the majority insofar as it affirms the trial court’s decision to deny Fry bail, but I dissent from the majority holding that Ind.Code § 35-33-8-2(b) is unconstitutional. While I agree with Justice Rucker and join in his dissent, I write separately to reaffirm and support this Court’s past precedent and its long-standing adherence to an originalist interpretation of our state constitution.

We often cite the intent of the framers of our founding documents as a guiding principle of our jurisprudence, see, e.g., Snyder v. King, 958 N.E.2d 764, 772 (Ind.2011), Spickermon v. Goddard,…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  2. United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
  3. Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
  4. Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
  5. Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API