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

facebook - twitter on Facebook & Twitter

Indiana State Bar Association

Indianapolis Bar Association

Evansville Bar Association

Allen County Bar Association

Indiana Lawyer on Facebook

facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. It's a big fat black mark against the US that they radicalized a lot of these Afghan jihadis in the 80s to fight the soviets and then when they predictably got around to biting the hand that fed them, the US had to invade their homelands, install a bunch of corrupt drug kingpins and kleptocrats, take these guys and torture the hell out of them. Why for example did the US have to sodomize them? Dubya said "they hate us for our freedoms!" Here, try some of that freedom whether you like it or not!!! Now they got even more reasons to hate us-- lets just keep bombing the crap out of their populations, installing more puppet regimes, arming one faction against another, etc etc etc.... the US is becoming a monster. No wonder they hate us. Here's my modest recommendation. How about we follow "Just War" theory in the future. St Augustine had it right. How about we treat these obvious prisoners of war according to the Geneva convention instead of torturing them in sadistic and perverted ways.

  2. As usual, John is "spot-on." The subtle but poignant points he makes are numerous and warrant reflection by mediators and users. Oh but were it so simple.

  3. ACLU. Way to step up against the police state. I see a lot of things from the ACLU I don't like but this one is a gold star in its column.... instead of fighting it the authorities should apologize and back off.

  4. Duncan, It's called the RIGHT OF ASSOCIATION and in the old days people believed it did apply to contracts and employment. Then along came title vii.....that aside, I believe that I am free to work or not work for whomever I like regardless: I don't need a law to tell me I'm free. The day I really am compelled to ignore all the facts of social reality in my associations and I blithely go along with it, I'll be a slave of the state. That day is not today......... in the meantime this proposed bill would probably be violative of 18 usc sec 1981 that prohibits discrimination in contracts... a law violated regularly because who could ever really expect to enforce it along the millions of contracts made in the marketplace daily? Some of these so-called civil rights laws are unenforceable and unjust Utopian Social Engineering. Forcing people to love each other will never work.

  5. I am the father of a sweet little one-year-old named girl, who happens to have Down Syndrome. To anyone who reads this who may be considering the decision to terminate, please know that your child will absolutely light up your life as my daughter has the lives of everyone around her. There is no part of me that condones abortion of a child on the basis that he/she has or might have Down Syndrome. From an intellectual standpoint, however, I question the enforceability of this potential law. As it stands now, the bill reads in relevant part as follows: "A person may not intentionally perform or attempt to perform an abortion . . . if the person knows that the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion solely because the fetus has been diagnosed with Down syndrome or a potential diagnosis of Down syndrome." It includes similarly worded provisions abortion on "any other disability" or based on sex selection. It goes so far as to make the medical provider at least potentially liable for wrongful death. First, how does a medical provider "know" that "the pregnant woman is seeking the abortion SOLELY" because of anything? What if the woman says she just doesn't want the baby - not because of the diagnosis - she just doesn't want him/her? Further, how can the doctor be liable for wrongful death, when a Child Wrongful Death claim belongs to the parents? Is there any circumstance in which the mother's comparative fault will not exceed the doctor's alleged comparative fault, thereby barring the claim? If the State wants to discourage women from aborting their children because of a Down Syndrome diagnosis, I'm all for that. Purporting to ban it with an unenforceable law, however, is not the way to effectuate this policy.

ADVERTISEMENT