C. B. v. State of Indiana - 4/8/13

Back to TopPrintE-mail
Monday  April 8, 2013 
11:00 AM  EST

11 a.m. 49A04-1207-JV-379. In March 2012, C.B. was alleged to be a delinquent child for committing what would have been battery if committed by an adult. One month later, the State and C.B. entered into a delinquent child admission agreement whereby the State dismissed the delinquency petition in a different cause for C.B.’s admission in the instant one. Also, if C.B. did not violate the terms of the agreement for 90 days, the State would dismiss the immediate petition. Six days later, C.B. was arrested for battery. A petition was filed for this offense but subsequently dropped. C.B. argued that because the petition had been dropped, the State failed to establish probable cause that she had violated her admission agreement. The State argues that this court lacks jurisdiction, because C.B.’s admission agreement is not a final judgment.

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT