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. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT