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. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

  2. Seventh Circuit Court Judge Diane Wood has stated in “The Rule of Law in Times of Stress” (2003), “that neither laws nor the procedures used to create or implement them should be secret; and . . . the laws must not be arbitrary.” According to the American Bar Association, Wood’s quote drives home this point: The rule of law also requires that people can expect predictable results from the legal system; this is what Judge Wood implies when she says that “the laws must not be arbitrary.” Predictable results mean that people who act in the same way can expect the law to treat them in the same way. If similar actions do not produce similar legal outcomes, people cannot use the law to guide their actions, and a “rule of law” does not exist.

  3. Linda, I sure hope you are not seeking a law license, for such eighteenth century sentiments could result in your denial in some jurisdictions minting attorneys for our tolerant and inclusive profession.

  4. Mazel Tov to the newlyweds. And to those bakers, photographers, printers, clerks, judges and others who will lose careers and social standing for not saluting the New World (Dis)Order, we can all direct our Two Minutes of Hate as Big Brother asks of us. Progress! Onward!

  5. My daughter was taken from my home at the end of June/2014. I said I would sign the safety plan but my husband would not. My husband said he would leave the house so my daughter could stay with me but the case worker said no her mind is made up she is taking my daughter. My daughter went to a friends and then the friend filed a restraining order which she was told by dcs if she did not then they would take my daughter away from her. The restraining order was not in effect until we were to go to court. Eventually it was dropped but for 2 months DCS refused to allow me to have any contact and was using the restraining order as the reason but it was not in effect. This was Dcs violating my rights. Please help me I don't have the money for an attorney. Can anyone take this case Pro Bono?

ADVERTISEMENT