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:
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.
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.
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.
Sets the number of copies of the acknowledgment of the order setting oral argument to one (1).
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.
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.
This proposal recommends that a trial judge have the authority to alter time limits in Rule 56 as provided in Trial Rule 6(B).
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).
See Committee commentary for description of changes.
The Committee invited public comment on the proposed rule amendments from April 5, 2012 to June 5, 2012. The comment period is now closed.