ILNews

Opinions April 12, 2012

April 12, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Jaymie T. Mount
11-2616
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane E. Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Remands for resentencing after the District Court denied the government’s motion for Mount to receive an additional one-level reduction following his guilty plea, citing Mount’s flight from charges. The additional reduction is mandatory once the government determines that the criteria spelled out in U.S.S.G. Section 3E1.1(b) are satisfied and it makes the necessary motion.

United States of America v. Anthony Raupp
11-2215
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Tanya Walton Pratt.
Criminal. Amends original opinion issued March 9, 2012, in which majority affirmed 100-month sentence and determination Raupp is a career offender. Judge Diane Wood dissents.

Indiana Supreme Court and Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Morse, M.D. v. Jeffrey Wayne Davis

84A05-1103-CT-140
Civil tort. Affirms judgment against Dr. Morse following a jury trial on Davis’ complaint alleging medical malpractice for failure to diagnose Davis’ colon cancer. The trial court did not abuse its discretion when it excluded from evidence at trial certain expert testimony, a medical record and the testimony of a treating physician and nurse.

Jarrad L. Mastin v. State of Indiana
18A02-1109-CR-890
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentences for one count of Class A felony child molesting and two counts of Class B felony child molesting. Mastin did not demonstrate that the trial court’s evidentiary rulings denied him a fair trial. There is sufficient evidence from which the jury could conclude he committed child molesting by sexual intercourse.

H.V. and O.P. v. Indiana Department of Child Services (NFP)
02A05-1108-JT-506
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Robert E. Stanley v. State of Indiana (NFP)

18A02-1109-CR-834
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony home improvement fraud.

Gary Anderson Proby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A05-1110-CR-522
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.

Johnny Lee Gibson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A04-1109-CR-494
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class B felony rape.

D.H. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A04-1110-JV-533
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class C felony intimidation and two acts that would have been Class B misdemeanor possession of a knife on school property, if committed by an adult.

Jason Haste and Jamie R. Haste v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A05-1107-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms the Hastes’ convictions of and sentences for maintaining a common nuisance and possession of marijuana as Class D felonies, but vacates their convictions of Class A misdemeanor possession of marijuana due to double jeopardy violations.

Joseph Adams v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1110-CR-562
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B misdemeanor criminal mischief and the revocation of Adams’ probation.

David Paul Burns v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1108-CR-364
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony theft and adjudication as a habitual offender.

Rodney W. Robinson v. Arthur Cashwell & Roxie Battle (NFP)
45A03-1107-SC-351
Small claim. Affirms judgment against Robinson and in favor of Cashwell and Battle on Robinson’s claim that the defendants had his truck improperly towed.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT