# Baer v. State

> Indiana Supreme Court · May 22, 2007 · 866 N.E.2d 752

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505152

## Case

- **Full name:** Fredrick Michael BAER, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Supreme Court
- **Decided:** May 22, 2007
- **Citations:** 866 N.E.2d 752; 2007 Ind. LEXIS 363; 2007 WL 1470644
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Shepard
- **Judges:** Boehm, Dickson, Rucker, Shepard, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 28 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505152

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- rejecting appellant's argument that State must show that he "received and understood the jail handbook" as a "foundational requirement[ ] for establishing consent" to his phone calls being recorded for purposes of Indiana Wiretap Act
- affirming trial court’s admission of recording of jail telephone call made by defendant to his sister

## Opinion text

SHEPARD, Chief Justice,
concurring.
For the last several decades at least, Indiana law has assigned to judges the duty to decide sentences in criminal cases. Appellate court review of such trial court decisions has been highly deferential, but we have undertaken to review and revise sentences when persuaded that the trial court’s sentence is “inappropriate.”
As for death penalty and life without parole cases, the legislature has now largely shifted the sentencing decision from judges and assigned it instead to juries. I am inclined to think that we should be even less ready to set aside the sentencing judgment of jurors, and that the standard we adopted during the era of judicial sen *767 tencing should probably not apply to second-guess Indiana juries.
The parties here have not joined this question, however, and there appears no reason to reverse the jury’s decision. Accordingly, I join in the Court’s opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9505152. Public record. Not legal advice.