INDIANAPOLIS — After sailing through a summer study committee, efforts to get a magistrate position approved for the county courts have made headway during the 2021 session of the Indiana General Assembly.
A bill endorsing the measure presented by state Rep. Bob Cherry, R-Greenfield, passed out of the House Courts and Criminal Code Committee by a vote of 11-0 on Tuesday, Jan. 12.
Cherry spoke on behalf of the county and reminded state officials the local judiciary is in dire need of the magistrate’s position, saying the county’s population has doubled in size since he was first elected in 1998.
[sc:text-divider text-divider-title=”Story continues below gallery” ]
Cherry also noted that when local officials presented the case to create a magistrate’s position to the interim study committee, they had underestimated the court system’s caseload.
The county’s newest judge, D.J. Davis, recently discovered some 650 juvenile and civil cases had not been included in the county’s documentation because of an input error.
Davis, who presides in Hancock County Superior Court 1, made sure Cherry had the correct information when he discussed the measure Tuesday. Davis and the county’s other judges, Scott Sirk of Hancock County Circuit Court; and Dan Marshall of Superior Court 2, are on record as supporting the addition of a magistrate along with other county officials, Cherry told the committee.
“After many conversations with local community leaders, it’s clear we need an additional magistrate in Hancock County,” Cherry said. “I authored this legislation to help meet this need and assist with the growing number of cases judges and staff are processing.”
Cherry was the only person to speak to the committee on behalf of the county. The judges were unable to appear.
Plans to expand the local judiciary originally called for officials to convert the court commissioner’s position, which is held by Cody Coombs, into a magistrate seat with the anticipation of Coombs becoming the magistrate.
While Davis is in favor of Coombs getting the magistrate’s position, he would rather see the county keep the commissioner’s position as well, particularly in light of the updated data.
“I’m thrilled with the idea of the magistrate because the other judges will not have to supervise their work or sign off on things, but we need that commissioner’s position too,” Davis said.
As commissioner, Coombs already covers three half-days for the county’s three courts, in addition to other duties. If the position is eliminated, the judges will have no breaks to handle other vital responsibilities.
“If we lose the commissioner to become a magistrate, we’ll not have the time to review cases and pleas that deserve our time,” Davis said. “People have a right to have their day in court and not have things rushed through.”
Marshall, however, said he does not anticipate keeping the commissioner’s position if the magistrate’s seat is added.
“I can only speak for myself, but it is my intention that we replace the commissioner’s position with the magistrate’s position, not maintain both,” Marshall said in an email to the Daily Reporter.
If the position ultimately is approved, the county’s three judges will select the magistrate and make a recommendation to county officials about the commissioner’s position.
While a magistrate has fewer and more limited powers than a judge, the magistrate does have more powers than a court commissioner. Judges generally hear larger, more complex cases, while a magistrate hears smaller matters such as petty crime and traffic offenses. The court commissioner’s work, by contrast, must be reviewed by the judges, adding a layer of management to the docket.
State Rep. Chris Jeter, R-Fishers, whose district includes northwestern Hancock County, said after the committee had voted in favor of the measure that having the magistrate will improve the efficiency of the work in the county courts.
“Our court system continues to find itself backlogged, but judges are trying their best to keep up with addressing the high number of cases,” Jeter said.
Rep. Sean Eberhart, R-Shelbville, whose district includes part of southern Hancock County, agreed and also said that the county needs the magistrate.
“By adding an additional magistrate, we are ensuring our local courts are more efficient while reducing the strain on our judges,” Eberhart said.
The bill now moves to the full House for consideration, although it will go to the House Ways and Means Committee first as part of the state budget bill, which won’t be heard and approved until later in the session.
The magistrate’s salary would be paid by the state, which would be a shift, because the commissioner’s position is in the county budget. If the magistrate’s position is approved, county officials would reconsider the court commissioner funding and determine if the position should be terminated.
