Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court
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
- Bell v. WolfishSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Gerstein v. PughSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Addington v. TexasSupreme Court of the United States · 1979
- Jackson v. IndianaSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.