ILNews

Justices accept 2 cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court granted transfer to two cases, including one involving the validity of a search warrant.

In Kenny D. Lee v. State of Indiana, No. 71S03-1202-CR-67, Kenny Lee appealed his conviction of Class A felony possession of cocaine, which the Indiana Court of Appeals overturned in November 2011. The appellate court ruled that police did not have reasonable suspicion to conduct an investigatory stop of Lee. Police had set up surveillance of a house in order to secure it prior to executing a search warrant and saw Lee leave the home and drive away. Police followed him, initiated the traffic stop, and later searched the residence where Lee came from and found drugs. The COA also held that the state didn’t provide evidence of additional circumstances where a trier-of-fact would infer Lee knew about the drugs in the home or had the ability to control the drugs.

The justices also took Quanardel Wells v. State of Indiana, No. 49S05-1202-CR-68, in which the Court of Appeals in a not-for-publication decision affirmed on interlocutory appeal the denial of Quanardel Wells’ motion to sever the offenses for separate trials with respect to each victim. Wells was charged in an 11-count information with five counts of Class A felony criminal deviate conduct, one count of Class A felony rape, three counts of criminal confinement – one as a Class B felony and two as Class C felonies – and Class D felonies strangulation and intimidation. The charges involved offenses committed at different times against four separate victims.

The Supreme Court also denied transfer to eight cases for the week ending Feb. 3.

 

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