Loren Hamilton Fry v. State of Indiana
Indiana Supreme Court
1Opinion of the Court
DAVID, Justice.
The Indiana Constitution provides a qualified right to bail, exempting murder and treason from that right when “the proof is evident, or the presumption strong.” For nearly 150 years, every time we have addressed the issue in the context of a murder charge, this Court has held that the defendant must carry the burden of demonstrating that the proof is not evident and the presumption not strong, and that he is thus entitled to bail. And the Indiana General Assembly has codified this constitutional provision and our jurisprudence into the Indiana Code.
A criminal defendant now…
Also in this document: Concurring in part, dissenting in part.
2Cases cited64 opinions
- United States v. SalernoSupreme Court of the United States · 1987
- Branzburg v. HayesSupreme Court of the United States · 1972
- Woodford v. VisciottiSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Adams v. United States Ex Rel. McCannSupreme Court of the United States · 1943
- Wood v. GeorgiaSupreme Court of the United States · 1962
59 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by19 opinions
- Larry C. Perry, Jr. v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2017
- Loren H. Fry v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
- Christopher Smith v. State of IndianaIndiana Supreme Court · 2014
- James Satterfield v. State of IndianaIndiana Court of Appeals · 2015
- Arnel J. Gallanosa, D.D.S. v. Indiana State Board of Dentistry (mem. dec.)Indiana Court of Appeals · 2015
14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.