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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. 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?

ADVERTISEMENT