ILNews

Opinions Dec. 13, 2013

December 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Everitt Dickey v. State of Indiana
10A01-1212-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A child molesting, rejecting Dickey’s argument that testimony about his physical abuse of the victim and her mother was improperly admitted. The court held that Dickey failed to preserve the argument for appeal because, while his attorney objected to a line of questioning about when Dickey’s relationship with the victim’s mother began to change, a continuing objection was not raised.

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-804
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. Although he did not physically touch a police officer, Walker ignored orders to drop to the ground and instead moved toward the officer in an aggressive manner with his fist clenched. The Supreme Court found the totality of Walker’s conduct was sufficient to show an active threat of strength, violence or power.


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Kenny A. Jones, Sr. v. City of Elkhart, Indiana, et al.
12-3912
Criminal. Affirms summary judgment in favor of City of Elkhart and other defendants in a suit alleging a traffic stop and drunken-driving arrest were violations of the plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Summary judgment was permissible because the record showed ample probable cause for police to stop Jones, who later tested above the legal blood alcohol limit and was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Don't we have bigger issues to concern ourselves with?

  2. 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?

  3. 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"

  4. Different rules for different folks....

  5. I would strongly suggest anyone seeking mediation check the experience of the mediator. There are retired judges who decide to become mediators. Their training and experience is in making rulings which is not the point of mediation.

ADVERTISEMENT