Cheatham v. Pohle

789 N.E.2d 467 · Indiana Supreme Court · 2003

Facts

Doris Cheatham and Michael Pohle divorced in 1994. Pohle retained photographs he had taken of Cheatham in the nude as well as photos of the two engaged in a consensual sexual act. In early 1998, Pohle made photocopies of the photographs, added Cheatham's name, her work location and phone number, her new husband's name, and her attorney's name. He then distributed at least sixty copies around the small community where both he and Cheatham still lived and worked.

Procedural history

Cheatham sued Pohle, and a jury awarded her $100,000 in compensatory damages and $100,000 in punitive damages. Cheatham appealed the judgment, challenging the constitutionality of the punitive damages allocation statute. The Court of Appeals found no taking but concluded the statute violated Article I, Section 21 of the Indiana Constitution regarding particular services. The State intervened and petitioned for transfer, which this court granted.

Issue

Does Indiana's punitive damages allocation statute, which directs 75% of an award to the State's Violent Crime Victims' Compensation Fund, constitute an unconstitutional taking of property? Does the statute place a demand on an attorney's particular services without just compensation in violation of the Indiana Constitution?

Holding

The Indiana punitive damages allocation statute does not create an unconstitutional taking of property. It also does not place a demand on an attorney's particular services in violation of the Indiana Constitution.

Rule

A plaintiff has no property right or entitlement to an award of punitive damages because such damages are quasi-criminal in nature, designed to deter and punish, not to compensate the plaintiff. Therefore, allocating a portion of punitive damages to the state is not an unconstitutional taking. For a "particular services" claim, there must be a state demand, requiring threatened use of physical force or legal process compelling submission. Since an attorney freely contracts with a client and is not compelled by the state, the statute merely limits recovery and does not constitute a demand for particular services.

Read the full opinion on CourtListener

Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.