public intoxication
Court upholds public intoxication conviction
June 19, 2013
Jennifer NelsonA man who refused to leave the side of a friend’s mother after she was hit while crossing the street in Indianapolis
had his conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication upheld by the Indiana Court of Appeals Wednesday. The court
found sufficient evidence to sustain the conviction.
MoreChange to public intoxication statute not retroactive
February 22, 2013
Dave StaffordA woman convicted of public intoxication may not receive relief from a change in the statute that took effect a day before
her bench trial.
MoreZoeller, Merritt tour campuses, promote Lifeline law
November 14, 2012
The Indiana state senator who sponsored a law that aims to protect minors from arrest when they seek medical attention for
alcohol-related emergencies is joining Indiana Attorney General Greg Zoeller in spreading the word on college campuses.
MoreCOA: Judge’s late recusal not reversible error
October 23, 2012
Dave StaffordAn Adams Circuit Court judge who learned that he had previously represented a defendant on trial in his courtroom acted appropriately
when he recused himself but denied a mistrial, the Indiana Court of Appeals ruled.
MoreDefendant’s argument should be made to rules committee
October 3, 2012
Jennifer NelsonIn affirming the denial of a man’s motion to suppress statements he made to an officer at a gas station, the Indiana
Court of Appeals pointed out that his arguments pertaining to Indiana Evidence Rule 617 would be better presented to the Evidence
Rules Review Committee.
MoreMan did not validly waive right to jury trial
August 15, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a Vanderburgh County man’s misdemeanor convictions of battery and public intoxication,
finding he did not waive his right to a jury trial.
MoreTests not required to disprove arrestee intoxication
July 18, 2012
Jennifer NelsonIn a case of first impression, the Indiana Court of Appeals rejected a woman’s argument that the Indiana Code requires
law enforcement personnel to evaluate if there could be other reasons a person is displaying signs of intoxication before
arresting her for public intoxication.
MoreCOA holds omission of 'voluntary' was not an error
June 5, 2012
Jenny MontgomeryThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court’s decision to refuse a man’s tendered jury instructions.
MoreJudges uphold public intox conviction
March 29, 2012
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals affirmed a man’s public intoxication conviction, finding police had reasonable suspicion
the man was intoxicated, and evidence is sufficient to support the conviction.
MoreJustices keep pace with past years' activity
July 5, 2011
Michael HoskinsIn the final days before its fiscal calendar year ended, the Indiana Supreme Court kept pace with past years’ activity
levels.
MoreHigh court divided on public intoxication charge
June 29, 2011
Jennifer NelsonIn deciding that a woman’s public intoxication conviction should stand, four Indiana Supreme Court justices declined
to reverse her conviction on public policy grounds and found the conviction didn’t violate any constitutional right.
MoreCourt splits on public intoxication conviction
October 21, 2010
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals split today on whether a woman’s conviction of Class B misdemeanor public intoxication
should be reversed because she wasn’t in a public place within the meaning of Indiana Code at the time police stopped
her car.
MoreJudges disagree on public intox conviction
December 5, 2008
Jennifer NelsonThe Indiana Court of Appeals reversed a woman's conviction of public intoxication, but the judge dissenting in the case
believed the majority reweighed the credibility of the witnesses and their testimony to reach their decision.
MoreSponsored by
on Facebook & Twitter
on Facebook & Twitter
Indiana Lawyer on Facebook
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT
Back to TopCopyright © All Rights Reserved. Privacy Policy | Terms of Use.
Design, CMS, Hosting & Web Development :: ePublishing.
Additional Hosting & Delivery by
The court of appeals not only tries to rewrite or interpret the law to suit their fancy, now they choose play stupid as well. Every consideration must be given to pro se litigants, who are not held to the same standards as attorneys, as stated by,SCOTUS. I assume they didn't have a lawyer, since one wasn't mentioned and I strongly suggest thatb the rest of the, origional petitioners get back in there and fight for their rights.
the irony of situations like this is that the clients whom conour cheated are the ones who should be pulling hardest for him to remain free and keep his law license, so they have some hopes of him paying back. really bury the guy deep and then there will be little hope of restitution
Qualified immunity, means that if you wear a badge, you are exempt from law and free to do anything you please! The courts will back badge toting individuals, because they think they are above the law as well. They think, they have judicial immunity, they do not.
Deeply, deeply concerned? I'll bet if it was the judge's money that had been swindled we'd see deep concern with actual consequences. First a Ponzi scheme, then a shell game with the assets…c'mon, hasn't Conour abused the judicial system and his clients long enough? I say enough already.
Wow, just wow.