ILNews

Opinions Jan. 23, 2014

January 23, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
A.J.R. v. State of Indiana
46A03-1306-JV-243
Juvenile. Holds that the juvenile court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the officer’s testimony, and the evidence is sufficient to prove A.J.R. shot two cattle and to sustain his adjudications for criminal mischief. However, concluding A.J.R.’s actions did not constitute mutilation or torture of an animal, the court reverses his adjudications for cruelty to an animal.

Chubb Custom Insurance Company, et al. v. Standard Fusee Corporation
49A02-1301-PL-91
Civil plenary. Reverses summary judgment and award of defense costs in favor of Standard Fusee Corp. Concludes that the total pollution exclusion clause in Chubb Custom’s comprehensive general liability insurance policies is applicable to Standard Fusee’s liability for the release of perchlorate and therefore its duty to defend and indemnify is not triggered.

Johnathon R. Aslinger v. State of Indiana
35A02-1303-CR-296
Criminal. The trial court erred in admitting the evidence seized in violation of Aslinger’s Fourth Amendment rights and in imposing consecutive habitual substance offender sentence enhancements. Reverses convictions of possession of methamphetamine and paraphernalia and remands in Case No. 127. Instructs the trial court order the HSO enhancements be served concurrently. Concludes that, in Case No. 152, the trial court did not err in excluding Aslinger’s jury instruction, and his sentence for dealing methamphetamine is not inappropriate in light of the nature of the offense and character of the offender. Judge Robb concurs in separate opinion.

State of Indiana v. DeAngelo Banks
49A02-1303-CR-235
Criminal. Affirms grant of Banks’ motion to suppress his confession of murder. The record reveals that the detective’s advisement did not inform Banks that he had the right to have counsel present during the questioning at issue and thus failed to properly advise Banks of his Miranda rights. The trial court considered the evidence presented of Banks’ mental illness, heard his own testimony, and came to the conclusion that his statement was not voluntary. There is substantial evidence supporting the trial court’s conclusion.

Dexter Hawkins v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1305-CR-233
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief.

In the Matter of the Termination of the Parent-Child Relationship of: R.A.B. (Minor Child) and Z.T.B. (Mother) & R.W.B. (Father) v. The Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)

02A03-1306-JT-234
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Tyrone Shelton v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1308-CR-387
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony serious violent felon in possession of a firearm.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Hmmmmm ..... How does the good doctor's spells work on tyrants and unelected bureacrats with nearly unchecked power employing in closed hearings employing ad hoc procedures? Just askin'. ... Happy independence day to any and all out there who are "free" ... Unlike me.

  2. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  3. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  4. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  5. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

ADVERTISEMENT