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.


Post a comment to this story

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
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Heritage, what Heritage? The New Age is dawning .... an experiment in disordered liberty and social fragmentation is upon us .... "Carmel City Council approved a human rights ordinance with a 4-3 vote Monday night after hearing about two hours of divided public testimony. The ordinance bans discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, among other traits. Council members Rick Sharp, Carol Schleif, Sue Finkam and Ron Carter voted in favor of it. The three council members opposing it—Luci Snyder, Kevin Rider and Eric Seidensticker—all said they were against any form of discrimination, but had issues with the wording and possible unintended consequences of the proposal." Kardashian is the new Black.

  2. Can anyone please tell me if anyone is appealing the law that certain sex offenders can't be on school property. How is somebody supposed to watch their children's sports games or graduations, this law needs revised such as sex offenders that are on school property must have another non-offender adult with them at all times while on school property. That they must go to the event and then leave directly afterwards. This is only going to hurt the children of the offenders and the father/ son mother/ daughter vice versa relationship. Please email me and let me know if there is a group that is appealing this for reasons other than voting and religion. Thank you.

  3. Should any attorney who argues against the abortion industry, or presents arguments based upon the Founders' concept of Higher Law, (like that marriage precedes the State) have to check in with the Judges and Lawyers Assistance Program for a mandatory mental health review? Some think so ... that could certainly cut down on cases such as this "cluttering up" the SCOTUS docket ... use JLAP to deny all uber conservative attorneys licenses and uber conservative representation will tank. If the ends justify the means, why not?

  4. Tell them sherry Mckay told you to call, they're trying to get all the people that have been wronged and held unlawfully to sign up on this class action lawsuit.

  5. Call Young and Young aAttorneys at Law theres ones handling a class action lawsuit