Proposed Rule Amendments: April 2013

Notice of Proposed Rule Amendments by the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure for Public Comment

To the Bench, Bar and Public:

Pursuant to Ind. Trial Rule 80, the Indiana Supreme Court Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure has posted the following:

1 Waiver of Counsel by Juveniles

This proposed new rule would require the appointment of counsel to a juvenile charged with a delinquent act and would permit waiver of counsel only after consultation with the attorney. The waiver would be made in open court and be confirmed in writing.

2 Electronic Transcripts

This proposal would permit the parties to an appeal to seek the permission of the Court of Appeals to file the transcript in an electronic format.

3 Electronically Filed Briefs

Two proposed versions for submitting appellate briefs in electronic format are presented for public comment.

Version 1 permits the filing of electronic briefs, including, addenda to briefs, petitions, and appendices. However, a paper original and eight copies of briefs, addenda to briefs and petitions are still required. One paper copy of appendices is required. An exception to this requirement may be made based upon a showing of inability to comply with this rule.

Version 2 is similar to Version 1, but only requires one copy of briefs, addenda to briefs and petitions. Further it requires an original and eight (8) copies of all notices of additional authorities.

4 Acknowledgment of Oral Argument

Sets the number of copies of the acknowledgment of the order setting oral argument to one (1).

5 Temporary Appearances in Criminal Cases

This proposal would provide procedures for withdrawal of representation and temporary or limited representation by attorneys in criminal cases, similar to the rule existing in civil cases.

6 Small Claims Venue

Proposed changes to this rule would create a, hopefully, clearer rule for venue in small claims cases. The suggested changes would bring venue township small claims courts more in line with the venue requirements that exist for the county based small claims courts.

7 Summary Judgment

This proposal recommends that a trial judge have the authority to alter time limits in Rule 56 as provided in Trial Rule 6(B).

8 Special Judge Selection

This change proposes to clarify that when the parties do not agree to a special judge or the agreed to judge refuses to take the case under Trial Rule 79(D), selection of a special judge proceeds under Rule 79(H).

9 Rules of Evidence

See Committee commentary for description of changes.

Give us your feedback

The Committee invited public comment on the proposed rule amendments from April 5, 2012 to June 5, 2012. The comment period is now closed.