ILNews

Indiana Supreme Court takes two cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to two cases for the week ending May 3 – one involving a physician, and one involving a man convicted of child molesting.

In Mary Alice Manley and Gary Manley v. Ryan J. Sherer, M.D., and Sherer Family Medicine, P.C., No. 59A01-1104-PL-190, Gary and Mary Alice Manley appealed a trial court’s award of summary judgment for Dr. Ryan Sherer and Sherer Family Medicine, and the Court of Appeals reversed the trial court. Mary Manley was involved in a head-on crash with one of Sherer’s patients, Kimberly Zehr. The Manleys claimed that Sherer was negligent in failing to warn Zehr that she should not drive due to her medical condition and a medication she was taking at the time of the crash.

The other case that the high court accepted on transfer is Gerald P. VanPatten v. State of Indiana, No. 02A03-1103-CR-113, in which VanPatten was convicted of two counts of Class A felony child molesting and one count of Class C felony child molesting.

In that case, Gerald VanPatten appealed his convictions, claiming that he had been denied his request for new counsel, but the Court of Appeals held that while a right to counsel is guaranteed, a right to counsel of choice is not necessarily guaranteed. VanPatten also claimed evidence was insufficient to support the molesting convictions, saying that testimony from a nurse who examined both children in the case should not have been admitted in court. One of the alleged victims – S.D., VanPatten’s biological daughter – later recanted her claims against him. The appellate court agreed that evidence was sufficient to support charges that VanPatten molested S.D.’s friend, but Judge John Baker disagreed that evidence supported the claim that VanPatten molested S.D.

The Supreme Court denied transfer to 18 other cases.  

 

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