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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  2. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  3. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  4. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT