ILNews

Justices take two cases

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Supreme Court has granted transfer to two cases – a civil case involving a car accident and an appeal from a convicted child molester.

The justices accepted Henry C. Bennett, et. al. v. John E. Richmond, et. al., No. 20A03-0906-CV-285, in which Henry C. Bennett had appealed the trial court’s motion to correct error following a jury verdict in favor of John and Jennifer Richmond.

The appeals court concluded that the trial court abused its discretion by allowing a doctor to testify that Richmond sustained a brain injury as a result of the car accident with Bennett and had remanded for a new trial.

In Keith Hoglund v. State of Indiana, No. 90A02-1005-CR-591, appellant/defendant Keith Hoglund had appealed his conviction and sentence for Class A felony child molesting, contending the trial court abused its discretion in admitting testimony regarding whether the victim was falsifying or exaggerating stories of Hoglund’s molestation of the victim. He also contended the trial court abused its discretion in sentencing him and that his 50-year sentence was inappropriately harsh.

The appeals court concluded that the serious, ongoing nature of the offense justified the 50-year sentence and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting testimony that indirectly vouched for the victim’s credibility.

The justices declined Jeff Koehlinger, et al. v. State Lottery Commission of Ind., No. 49A02-1003-CT-247, in which Jeff Koehlinger appealed summary judgment for the lottery, and the appeals court reversed and remanded, concluding that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment.

Only Justice Steven David voted to grant the petition to transfer for Koehlinger.
 

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. What is this, the Ind Supreme Court thinking that there is a separation of powers and limited enumerated powers as delegated by a dusty old document? Such eighteen century thinking, so rare and unwanted by the elites in this modern age. Dictate to us, dictate over us, the massess are chanting! George Soros agrees. Time to change with times Ind Supreme Court, says all President Snows. Rule by executive decree is the new black.

  2. I made the same argument before a commission of the Indiana Supreme Court and then to the fedeal district and federal appellate courts. Fell flat. So very glad to read that some judges still beleive that evidentiary foundations matter.

  3. 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.

  4. 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?

  5. 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.

ADVERTISEMENT