ILNews

COA travels north to hear arguments

Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals travels to Marion and South Bend this week to hear arguments in an appeal of voluntary manslaughter and criminal recklessness convictions, and a case involving a conviction of child solicitation.

The appellate court will be at Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion Tuesday to hear Jeremy D. Simpson v. State of Indiana, No. 46A04-0802-CR-103. The LaPorte Circuit case involves Jeremy Simpson's convictions of voluntary manslaughter and criminal recklessness. He argues the state failed to rebut his self-defense claim, among other issues. Chief Judge John Baker and Judges Terry Crone and Cale Bradford will hear the case at 11 a.m. in the Globe Theater on the mall in the Student Center, 4201 S. Washington St.

On Wednesday, Judges Crone and Bradford, along with Judge Michael Barnes, head to Indiana University - South Bend to hear Dustin Neff v. State of Indiana, No. 29A02-0904-CR-332. Dustin Neff was convicted of child solicitation after driving to an arranged meeting place in Hamilton County to meet who he believed was a 12-year-old girl from Georgia he spoke to online.

Neff claims there's insufficient evidence to prove the offense as charged and the state failed to prove venue in Hamilton County. Neff is a resident of Madison County. Arguments begin at 2:30 p.m. in the Dorothy & Darwin Wiekamp Hall on campus, 1700 Mishawaka Ave.

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. Such things are no more elections than those in the late, unlamented Soviet Union.

  2. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  3. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  4. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  5. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

ADVERTISEMENT