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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT