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. No second amendment, pro life, pro traditional marriage, reagan or trump tshirts will be sold either. And you cannot draw Mohammed even in your own notebook. And you must wear a helmet at all times while at the fair. And no lawyer jokes can be told except in the designated protest area. And next year no crucifixes, since they are uber offensive to all but Catholics. Have a nice bland day here in the Lego movie. Remember ... Everything is awesome comrades.

  2. Thank you for this post . I just bought a LG External DVD It came with Cyber pwr 2 go . It would not play on Lenovo Idea pad w/8.1 . Your recommended free VLC worked great .

  3. All these sites putting up all the crap they do making Brent Look like A Monster like he's not a good person . First off th fight actually started not because of Brent but because of one of his friends then when the fight popped off his friend ran like a coward which left Brent to fend for himself .It IS NOT a crime to defend yourself 3 of them and 1 of him . just so happened he was a better fighter. I'm Brent s wife so I know him personally and up close . He's a very caring kind loving man . He's not abusive in any way . He is a loving father and really shouldn't be where he is not for self defense . Now because of one of his stupid friends trying to show off and turning out to be nothing but a coward and leaving Brent to be jumped by 3 men not only is Brent suffering but Me his wife , his kids abd step kidshis mom and brother his family is left to live without him abd suffering in more ways then one . that man was and still is my smile ....he's the one real thing I've ever had in my life .....f@#@ You Lafayette court system . Learn to do your jobs right he maybe should have gotten that year for misdemeanor battery but that s it . not one person can stand to me and tell me if u we're in a fight facing 3 men and u just by yourself u wouldn't fight back that you wouldn't do everything u could to walk away to ur family ur kids That's what Brent is guilty of trying to defend himself against 3 men he wanted to go home tohisfamily worse then they did he just happened to be a better fighter and he got the best of th others . what would you do ? Stand there lay there and be stomped and beaten or would u give it everything u got and fight back ? I'd of done the same only I'm so smallid of probably shot or stabbed or picked up something to use as a weapon . if it was me or them I'd do everything I could to make sure I was going to live that I would make it hone to see my kids and husband . I Love You Brent Anthony Forever & Always .....Soul 1 baby

  4. Good points, although this man did have a dog in the legal fight as that it was his mother on trial ... and he a dependent. As for parking spaces, handicap spots for pregnant women sure makes sense to me ... er, I mean pregnant men or women. (Please, I meant to include pregnant men the first time, not Room 101 again, please not Room 101 again. I love BB)

  5. I have no doubt that the ADA and related laws provide that many disabilities must be addressed. The question, however, is "by whom?" Many people get dealt bad cards by life. Some are deaf. Some are blind. Some are crippled. Why is it the business of the state to "collectivize" these problems and to force those who are NOT so afflicted to pay for those who are? The fact that this litigant was a mere spectator and not a party is chilling. What happens when somebody who speaks only East Bazurkistanish wants a translator so that he can "understand" the proceedings in a case in which he has NO interest? Do I and all other taxpayers have to cough up? It would seem so. ADA should be amended to provide a simple rule: "Your handicap, YOUR problem". This would apply particularly to handicapped parking spaces, where it seems that if the "handicap" is an ingrown toenail, the government comes rushing in to assist the poor downtrodden victim. I would grant wounded vets (IED victims come to mind in particular) a pass on this.. but others? Nope.

ADVERTISEMENT