ILNews

Indiana justices accept 4 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court took four cases last week, including two in which they released opinions the same day they granted transfer.

In a per curiam opinion issued June 20, Rondell Walker v. State of Indiana, 34S02-1206-CR-346, the justices revised Rondell Walker’s 20-year sentence to 12 years for his conviction of Class B felony possession of cocaine. Walker was within 1,000 feet of a family housing complex when he was stopped by police for a traffic infraction.

The justices also upheld Tina Whiting’s 55-year sentence for her role in a murder. They issued their decision June 19 in, Tina Whiting v. State of Indiana, 38S05-1206-CR-345, in which Whiting challenged the seating of a juror in her trial. The justices found the defense had premptory challenges available to strike the juror and failed to do so, so the court had no error to review.

The Supreme Court also took D.C. v. J.A.C., 32S04-1206-DR-349, in which the Indiana Court of Appeals reversed the grant of a father’s motion to modify custody and prevent his ex-wife from relocating; and Kimberly Heaton v. State of Indiana, 48S02-1206-CR-350, where the Court of Appeals ordered a trial court to use a probable cause standard instead of the legal standard of a preponderance of evidence to determine whether Kimberly Heaton violated her probation.

The high court declined to take 43 cases for the week ending June 25, including Jamaal Tinsley v. Nancy Parrish, 49A05-1104-CT-162, in which the Court of Appeals reversed the denial of former Indiana Pacers player Jamaal Tinsely’s motion to set aside a default judgment in favor of Nancy Parrish. Parrish sued an Indianapolis bar and three former members of the Pacers alleging that in 2007, she was injured as a result of an altercation involving the men near the coat check area of the bar, where Parrish worked.  

 

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

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. KUDOS to the Indiana Supreme Court for realizing that some bureacracies need to go to the stake. Recall what RWR said: "No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!" NOW ... what next to this rare and inspiring chopping block? Well, the Commission on Gender and Race (but not religion!?!) is way overdue. And some other Board's could be cut with a positive for State and the reputation of the Indiana judiciary.

  2. During a visit where an informant with police wears audio and video, does the video necessary have to show hand to hand transaction of money and narcotics?

  3. I will agree with that as soon as law schools stop lying to prospective students about salaries and employment opportunities in the legal profession. There is no defense to the fraudulent numbers first year salaries they post to mislead people into going to law school.

  4. The sad thing is that no fish were thrown overboard The "greenhorn" who had never fished before those 5 days was interrogated for over 4 hours by 5 officers until his statement was illicited, "I don't want to go to prison....." The truth is that these fish were measured frozen off shore and thawed on shore. The FWC (state) officer did not know fish shrink, so the only reason that these fish could be bigger was a swap. There is no difference between a 19 1/2 fish or 19 3/4 fish, short fish is short fish, the ticket was written. In addition the FWC officer testified at trial, he does not measure fish in accordance with federal law. There was a document prepared by the FWC expert that said yes, fish shrink and if these had been measured correctly they averaged over 20 inches (offshore frozen). This was a smoke and mirror prosecution.

  5. I love this, Dave! Many congrats to you! We've come a long way from studying for the bar together! :)

ADVERTISEMENT