Clerks and judges who are involved in issuing case numbers for court cases should be aware of the provisions of Indiana Supreme Court Administrative Rule 1(B)(4). That rule states, among other things, that “the clerk shall assign one case number to each defendant charged with one or more offenses or violations arising out of the same incident….”
During the last year and a half, our JTAC staff has been traveling throughout Indiana helping courts prepare for the deployment of the statewide case management system, Odyssey. This process involves a review of local record keeping methods and evaluation of business processes. As part of this exercise, our staff has come upon a variety of local court practices, some innovative and effective, but some that don’t comport with state law or Supreme Court rules.
Some clerks and courts are issuing multiple case numbers for a single defendant charged with multiple counts arising out of the same incident. This practice is in violation of Administrative Rule 1(B) (4). Such cases should be assigned a single case number under the highest offense. A court or clerk should take corrective action if multiple case numbers are assigned for a single defendant for violations and offenses that arise out of the same incident.
Indiana Code 33-24-6-1 created the Division of State Court Administration as part of the office of the chief justice of Indiana, and I.C. 33-24-6-3 charged the Division with several duties. One of these duties calls for the reporting and collection of court data, which necessarily includes defining how case numbers are issued and counted. Another duty requires this office to “…examine the administrative and business methods and systems employed in the offices of the clerks of court and other offices related to and serving the courts and make recommendations for necessary improvements.”
One of our first recommendations for improvement was the creation and implementation by the Supreme Court of a uniform case numbering system with instructions on the assignment of case numbers. These recommendations are codified in a set of Administrative Rules which continue to evolve. Prosecutors and law enforcement officials determine the nature and number of counts, but once the counts are filed, clerks and courts assign court case numbers guided by Supreme Court rules.
Judges have many important responsibilities, including compliance with administrative rules. The Code of Judicial Conduct, Rule 2.5 states that a judge shall perform judicial and administrative duties completely, diligently and promptly. We are asking all courts to review their case issuing process to insure compliance with Administrative Rule 1. Questions about this rule should be directed to Mary DePrez, Director and Counsel for Trial Court Technology, [email protected], or James Walker, Director of Trial Court Management, State Court Administration, [email protected], or by telephone for both at 317-232-2542.