ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court takes 3 cases; denies 27

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The state’s highest court has granted transfer to three cases, including one in which they vacated the Indiana Court of Appeals decision and sent it back to the appellate court.

The justices remanded Marvin L. Ervin v. State of Indiana, No. 49S02-1102-CR-88, to the Court of Appeals on July 7. In a not-for-publication decision, the COA affirmed Marvin Ervin’s conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender. Ervin argued on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting pawn shop documents under the business record exception to the hearsay rules and refusing to instruct the jury on the offense of conversion, as a lesser included offense of theft.

The Indiana Supreme Court also took United Parcel Service v. Indiana Dept. of Revenue, No. 49S10-1107-TA-417; and K.D., et al., alleged to be CHINS; S.S. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services, No. 49S02-1107-JC-416. In United Parcel Service, the Indiana Tax Court in a NFP opinion granted UPS’ motion for summary judgment and denied the Indiana Department of Revenue’s motion for summary judgment. The Tax Court reversed the department’s denial of UPS’ claim for refund of corporate income tax for 2000 and its assessment of additional corporate tax income against UPS for 2001.

In K.D., a divided Court of Appeals reversed the juvenile court’s adjudication of two children as children in need of services following their mother’s admission to allegations filed by the Department of Child Services, but the stepfather denied the allegations. The stepfather asked for a fact-finding hearing but was denied by the juvenile court.

At issue in the case is what procedure a juvenile court should follow when one parent or guardian admits to the CHINS allegations but another denies the allegations and asks for a fact-finding hearing. The majority decided there was no reason why the admission of one parent should abridge the statutory procedural due process rights of another, and it remanded the case.

Judge Melissa May dissented, believing the stepfather wasn’t denied due process in the case. While the stepfather should have had a fact-finding hearing as provided by statute, that error wasn’t reversible under the facts of this case, she wrote.

The justices also denied 27 cases for the week ending July 8.
 

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. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  2. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  3. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  4. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

  5. Pass Legislation to require guilty defendants to pay for the costs of lab work, etc as part of court costs...

ADVERTISEMENT