ILNews

Opinions May 30, 2013

May 30, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Daniel L. Delaney
12-2849
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Terre Haute Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Delaney’s argument that no reasonable juror could have failed to find that he acted in the heat of passion when he killed his cellmate fails because there was considerable evidence of forethought, much of it emanating from the defendant’s own statements. Judge Bauer concurs.

Indiana Court of Appeals
In the Matter of the Parent-Child Rel. of: B.H. & B.H., and T.H. v. The Indiana Dept. of Child Services
52A02-1210-JT-849
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights. Holds the social worker who testified about a parenting assessment called Child Abuse Potential Inventory was able to testify as an expert witness in this case based on Ind. Evidence Rule 702. Concludes that CAPI is based on reliable principles and therefore the trial court did not err by allowing testimony about mother T.H.’s CAPI results.

Jeffrey Embrey v. State of Indiana
82A01-1211-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony neglect of a dependent. The trial court acted within its discretion in admitting certain evidence under the business records exception to the hearsay rule, and the evidence is sufficient to sustain Embrey’s conviction.

Dean Eric Blanck v. State of Indiana
47A01-1209-CR-424
Criminal. Affirms denial of petitions for permission to file a belated notice of appeal and for appointment of appellate counsel. Because Blanck is ineligible to bring a belated appeal under Post-Conviction Rule 2, the trial court properly denied his petition to appoint counsel for that purpose.

Joshua Lindsey v. Adam Neher
08A04-1211-MI-575
Miscellaneous. Reverses denial of Lindsey’s motion to rescind a tax deed issued to Neher. The tax deed at issue was invalid and the judgment void as a matter of law, so Lindsey is entitled to be allowed to tender his redemption payment. Remands for an order that the Carroll County auditor accept redemption funds from Lindsey.

United Farm Family Mutual Insurance Co. v. Indiana Insurance Co. and Royal Crown Bottling Corp. (NFP)
49A02-1211-PL-914
Civil plenary. Affirms summary judgment in favor of Indiana Insurance Co. and Royal Crown Bottling Corp. on whose auto insurance should cover damage from an accident a spouse was involved in with a company car.

Michael Toney v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A04-1209-CR-471
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and Class B felony possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon, but reverses sentence because the trial court abused its discretion in ordering the habitual offender enhancement be served consecutive to the two counts. Remands for resentencing.

Aaron Wiegand v. State of Indiana (NFP)
02A04-1210-CR-502
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition to withdraw guilty pleas for unlawful possession of a firearm by a serious violent felon as a Class B felony and criminal recklessness as a Class C felony.

Kristi Gates v. State of Indiana (NFP)
87A01-1210-CR-484
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress evidence obtained upon the execution of two search warrants.

Brian T. Martin v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1210-CR-446
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C misdemeanor operating while intoxicated, which was the underlying conviction for Martin’s Class D felony OWI conviction.

In Re: The Marriage of Kenneth G. Haynie, Jr. v. Teresa H. Haynie (NFP)
82A01-1206-DR-265
Domestic relation. Affirms court’s decision to set aside to wife assets that she had inherited. Reverses in part dissolution decree because it and an order on motion to correct error do not correspond with a substantially equal division of the remaining assets. The husband is entitled to an order for the transfer of assets actually allocated to him by the dissolution court in its division of marital assets.

James King v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1210-CR-858
Criminal. Affirms denial of petition for permission to file a belated notice of appeal.

Michael and Brenda Gralia v. Butler Garden Center (NFP)
67A01-1301-CT-26
Civil tort. Reverses trial court order granting Butler’s motion to dismiss a breach of contract claim and remands for further proceedings.

Russell Grady v. State of Indiana (NFP)

49A02-1210-CR-854
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Residents can't vote under our current system? Okay, let's replace the system with another system where they can't vote. Yeah, that's the ticket!

  2. It's an appreciable step taken by the government to curb the child abuse that are happening in the schools. Employees in the schools those are selected without background check can not be trusted. A thorough background check on the teachers or any other other new employees must be performed to choose the best and quality people. Those who are already employed in the past should also be checked for best precaution. The future of kids can be saved through this simple process. However, the checking process should be conducted by the help of a trusted background checking agency(https://www.affordablebackgroundchecks.com/).

  3. Almost everything connects to internet these days. From your computers and Smartphones to wearable gadgets and smart refrigerators in your home, everything is linked to the Internet. Although this convenience empowers usto access our personal devices from anywhere in the world such as an IP camera, it also deprives control of our online privacy. Cyber criminals, hackers, spies and everyone else has realized that we don’t have complete control on who can access our personal data. We have to take steps to to protect it like keeping Senseless password. Dont leave privacy unprotected. Check out this article for more ways: https://www.purevpn.com/blog/data-privacy-in-the-age-of-internet-of-things/

  4. You need to look into Celadon not paying sign on bonuses. We call get the run

  5. My parents took advantage of the fact that I was homeless in 2012 and went to court and got Legal Guardianship I my 2 daughters. I am finally back on my feet and want them back, but now they want to fight me on it. I want to raise my children and have them almost all the time on the weekends. Mynparents are both almost 70 years old and they play favorites which bothers me a lot. Do I have a leg to stand on if I go to court to terminate lehal guardianship? My kids want to live with me and I want to raise them, this was supposed to be temporary, and now it is turning into a fight. Ridiculous

ADVERTISEMENT