Jerry Vanzyll v. State of Indiana - 10/31/12

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Wednesday  October 31, 2012 
1:00 PM  EST

1 p.m. 34A02-1111-CR-1050.Seeger Jr.-Sr. High School, Fine Arts, Center,1222 South St., Road 263, West Lebanon, Indiana 47991. As a result of a narcotics investigation by the Kokomo Police Department, Vanzyll was arrested and convicted of several methamphetamine-related offenses and resisting law enforcement. Specifically, Vanzyll resided in a home in which police officers discovered a methamphetamine lab pursuant to a search warrant. When Kokomo police officers initially attempted to gain access to the residence, Vanzyll opened the back door, saw the officers, ran back into the house and shut the door. The officers ordered Vanzyll to return to the back door, and he eventually complied, at which time he was arrested. Vanzyll raises three issues on appeal. First, he challenges the admission of incriminating statements he made to corrections officers while he was in custody at the Howard County Jail. Next, Vanzyll argues that the evidence that he returned to his residence and closed the back door after noticing KPD officers outside and failed to immediately return to the back door of his residence when ordered to do so by the police is insufficient to prove that he committed the criminal offense of resisting law enforcement. And, finally, Vanzyll argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction for dealing methamphetamine because the State presented no evidence that there was an active methamphetamine lab in his residence on the date of the search. 

Back to Events
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