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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Major social engineering imposed by judicial order well in advance of democratic change, has been the story of the whole post ww2 period. Contraception, desegregation, abortion, gay marriage: all rammed down the throats of Americans who didn't vote to change existing laws on any such thing, by the unelected lifetime tenure Supreme court heirarchs. Maybe people came to accept those things once imposed upon them, but, that's accommodation not acceptance; and surely not democracy. So let's quit lying to the kids telling them this is a democracy. Some sort of oligarchy, but no democracy that's for sure, and it never was. A bourgeois republic from day one.

  2. JD Massur, yes, brings to mind a similar stand at a Texas Mission in 1836. Or Vladivostok in 1918. As you seemingly gloat, to the victors go the spoils ... let the looting begin, right?

  3. I always wondered why high fence deer hunting was frowned upon? I guess you need to keep the population steady. If you don't, no one can enjoy hunting! Thanks for the post! Fence

  4. Whether you support "gay marriage" or not is not the issue. The issue is whether the SCOTUS can extract from an unmentionable somewhere the notion that the Constitution forbids government "interference" in the "right" to marry. Just imagine time-traveling to Philadelphia in 1787. Ask James Madison if the document he and his fellows just wrote allowed him- or forbade government to "interfere" with- his "right" to marry George Washington? He would have immediately- and justly- summoned the Sergeant-at-Arms to throw your sorry self out into the street. Far from being a day of liberation, this is a day of capitulation by the Rule of Law to the Rule of What's Happening Now.

  5. With today's ruling, AG Zoeller's arguments in the cases of Obamacare and Same-sex Marriage can be relegated to the ash heap of history. 0-fer

ADVERTISEMENT