# Iseton v. State

> Indiana Court of Appeals · December 27, 1984 · 472 N.E.2d 643

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9519377

## Case

- **Full name:** Todd ISETON, Appellant (Defendant Below), v. STATE of Indiana, Appellee (Plaintiff Below)
- **Court:** Indiana Court of Appeals
- **Decided:** December 27, 1984
- **Citations:** 472 N.E.2d 643; 1984 Ind. App. LEXIS 3173
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Sullivan
- **Judges:** Shields, Buchanan, Sullivan
- **Cited by:** 21 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/9519377

## Opinion text

SULLIVAN, Judge,
concurring.
I concur in the affirmance of this conviction. I disagree, however, with the majority's conclusion that application of the six-person jury amendment to 1.0. 35-1-80-1 "was unquestionably retrospective in effect." (Slip Opinion, page 15)
The amendment took effect after commission of the crime charged but did not affect the elements of that crime or the punishment attributable to the crime. The amendment took effect prior to the commencement of the trial. As of the date of the amendment it was entitled to prospective application to all trials commencing thereafter. In this regard, our case differs from Warner v. State (1976) 265 Ind. 262 , 354 N.E.2d 178 . That case involved a detrimental change in the permissible punish ment for the crime committed. The "triggering event", as alluded to in that case, was quite obviously the commission of the crime. -It is the trial, in the case before us, which is the crucial event. See Weaver v. Graham (1981) 450 U.S. 24 at 29-30 , 101 S.Ct. 960 at 964 .
In light of the overruling of Thompson v. Utah (1898) 170 U.S. 343 , 18 S.Ct. 620 , 42 L.Ed. 1061 , I do not believe that there are any ex post facto connotations in this case whatever.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9519377. Public record. Not legal advice.