ILNews

COA heads to northern Indiana for ‘Appeals on Wheels’

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals will travel to northern Indiana Wednesday to hear arguments in Lake and St. Joseph counties involving two criminal cases.

Judges Paul Mathias, Melissa May and Michael Barnes will hear Rashawn Speed v. State of Indiana, 35A02-1308-CR-696 at 11:30 a.m. at St. Joseph High School. Speed was found guilty of child molesting and sexual misconduct with a minor related to his conduct with an acquaintance’s 13-year-old niece.

Speed raises four issues on appeal: whether the trial court improperly allowed vouching testimony on the victim’s behalf; whether the trial court erred by allowing certain questions; whether the evidence supports his convictions; and whether Speed’s trial counsel was ineffective.

Judges John Baker, James Kirsch and Margret Robb are scheduled to hear the appeal of Maddox Macy v. State of Indiana, 52A02-1309-CR-808, in Crown Point. Maddox Macy argues her resisting law enforcement conviction cannot stand because she didn’t forcibly resist.

Police and animal control officers went to Macy’s home after receiving a report that two of her dogs bit her neighbor. She was uncooperative and loud, and police threatened to arrest her if she did not calm down. She continued “making a scene,” according to court records, so the police officer forced her into the back of his police car. She refused to put her feet inside the door, so the officer had to place them inside the car. She was convicted of disorderly conduct and resisting law enforcement.

The arguments will be held at 1 p.m. CDT at the Lake County Government Complex Auditorium, 2293 N. Main St., Crown Point. The Women Lawyers Association is hosting the argument, which is a part of the “Appeals on Wheels” program. High school students from Lake and Porter counties will attend the argument.

 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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.

  2. 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.

  3. 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.

  4. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

  5. "No one is safe when the Legislature is in session."

ADVERTISEMENT