ILNews

Opinions Dec. 21, 2012

December 21, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Steven E. Malloch v. State of Indiana
17A03-1201-CR-37
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony child molesting for an incident involving his stepdaughter. There was no prosecutorial misconduct and the trial court did not err by admitting Malloch’s apology letter to C.P. Although Malloch did not receive a perfect trial, the appellate judges are confident he received a fair trial.

Kenneth S. Tipton v. State of Indiana
47A01-1201-CR-4
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony criminal recklessness. Believes someone shooting a gun at a residence may, for purposes of a criminal recklessness prosecution, create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person even if the resident is away from home at the moment of the shooting.

Patrick Austin v. State of Indiana
20A03-1112-CR-588
Criminal. Affirms conviction of and sentence for two counts of Class A felony possession of cocaine. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in continuing Austin’s trial. Sentence is not inappropriate as Austin was caught transporting cocaine worth over four million dollars, and he had a prior felony conviction and two firearms-related arrests, and had previously been found with one million dollars in cash, which police seized.

Charles D. Stutz v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1205-CR-255
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felonies resisting law enforcement and intimidation.

Michael R. Anderson, Jr. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1204-CR-220
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C misdemeanor operating a motor vehicle while never having received a driver’s license, Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and possession of marijuana as a Class D felony.

Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of B.W., Minor Child; R.C., Father v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
02A03-1204-JT-173
Juvenile. Affirms involuntary termination of parental rights.

Joseph Lamar Johnson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A04-1206-CR-316
Criminal. Affirms sentence following conviction of Class D felony possession of marijuana after a jury found Johnson guilty of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana and found he had previously been convicted of possession of marijuana.

Anthony K. McCullough v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1110-CR-955
Criminal. Grants rehearing and reverses previous decision. Now affirms the revocation of McCullough’s probation.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. As one of the many consumers affected by this breach, I found my bank data had been lifted and used to buy over $200 of various merchandise in New York. I did a pretty good job of tracing the purchases to stores around a college campus just from the info on my bank statement. Hm. Mr. Hill, I would like my $200 back! It doesn't belong to the state, in my opinion. Give it back to the consumers affected. I had to freeze my credit and take out data protection, order a new debit card and wait until it arrived. I deserve something for my trouble!

  2. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  3. Anyone who takes the time to study disciplinary and bar admission cases in Indiana ... much of which is, as a matter of course and by intent, off the record, would have a very difficult time drawing lines that did not take into account things which are not supposed to matter, such as affiliations, associations, associates and the like. Justice Hoosier style is a far departure than what issues in most other parts of North America. (More like Central America, in fact.) See, e.g., http://www.theindianalawyer.com/indiana-attorney-illegally-practicing-in-florida-suspended-for-18-months/PARAMS/article/42200 When while the Indiana court system end the cruel practice of killing prophets of due process and those advocating for blind justice?

  4. Wouldn't this call for an investigation of Government corruption? Chief Justice Loretta Rush, wrote that the case warranted the high court’s review because the method the Indiana Court of Appeals used to reach its decision was “a significant departure from the law.” Specifically, David wrote that the appellate panel ruled after reweighing of the evidence, which is NOT permissible at the appellate level. **But yet, they look the other way while an innocent child was taken by a loving mother who did nothing wrong"

  5. Different rules for different folks....

ADVERTISEMENT