ILNews

Opinions April 30, 2014

April 30, 2014
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The following decisions were posted after IL deadline Tuesday:
7th Circuit Court of Appeals

United States of America v. James V. Carroll
13-2600
U.S. District Court, Southern District of Indiana, Indianapolis Division, Judge Jane Magnus-Stinson.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress following Carroll’s guilty plea to one count of possession of child pornography and six counts of sexual exploitation of a child. The information in the detective’s affidavit was sufficient to establish fair probability that the computer or other digital storage devices within Carroll’s home would contain evidence of child pornography or exploitation of a child, despite the fact that the photographs were taken approximately five years earlier.

Indiana Supreme Court
Ernesto Roberto Ramirez v. State of Indiana
45S05-1305-CR-331
Criminal. Affirms denial of Ramirez’s motion for a mistrial. Clarifies precedent that defendants are entitled to a rebuttable presumption of prejudice when they can show by a preponderance of the evidence that an unauthorized, extra-judicial contact or communication with jurors occurred, and that the contact or communication pertained to the matter before the jury. Ramirez failed to prove that a juror’s extraneous contact and communications related to his case.

Wednesday’s opinions
Indiana Court of Appeals

L.C. Neely Drilling, Inc. and Maverick Energy, Inc. v. Hoosier Energy Rural Electrical Cooperative, Inc.
49A02-1305-MI-457
Miscellaneous. Affirms ruling in favor of Hoosier Energy upon the parties’ cross-motions for partial summary judgment on Hoosier Energy’s motion seeking judgment that the lease between Maverick and Hoosier Energy had expired and quieting title in favor of Hoosier Energy.

Austin G. Pittman v. State of Indiana
06A05-1305-CR-243
Criminal. Affirms denial of Pittman’s petition to restrict access to the record of his criminal conviction. Affirms appellate court has jurisdiction over the case and rejects state’s argument that Pittman’s appeal should be dismissed.

Gary Community School Corporation v. Prince Lardydell b/n/f Erma Lardydell
45A03-1306-PL-230
Civil plenary. Affirms judgment in favor of Prince Lardydell by next friend Erma Lardydell and $120,000 in damages after Prince was attacked in the hall of his high school. Declines to second-guess the jury’s decision. Finds no error in the giving of Final Instruction 12 or allowing a former school board member to testify.

In Re the Adoption of L.T.: J.M. and S.M. v. C.T.
49A05-1310-AD-493
Adoption. Reverses order terminating guardianship entered in Hamilton County court. The probate court erroneously granted relief from the guardianship order upon concluding that it was void for lack of subject matter jurisdiction. Orders a hearing on the best interests of the child.

First Response Services, Inc. v. Vincent A. Cullers (Vincent A. Cullers Counterclaim Plaintiff v. First Response Services, Inc. Counterclaim Defendant)
41A01-1305-PL-224
Civil plenary. Affirms denial of attorney fees for First Response Services. Because the contract failed to comply with the requirements of the Home Improvement Contract Act, the company is not entitled to recover attorney fees in its lawsuit seeking payment from Cullers.

Clarenda Love v. Bruce Love (NFP)
32A01-1311-DR-504
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital property.

Claricea D. Muse v. State of Indiana (NFP)
33A04-1309-CR-472
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor criminal trespass.

Kristin A. Houssain v. State of Indiana (NFP)
89A04-1307-CR-330
Criminal. Affirms on interlocutory appeal the denial of Houssain’s motion to dismiss her forgery and attempting to obtain a controlled substance by fraud charges.

Yosef M. Hajaji v. State of Indiana (NFP)
43A03-1310-CR-407
Criminal. Affirms aggregate three-year sentence for Class D felony domestic battery.

Eric Davis v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1308-CR-415
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class D felony intimidation, Class B misdemeanor public intoxication and Class B misdemeanor disorderly conduct.

Dillon W. Grissell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
90A02-1308-CR-737
Criminal. Affirms two convictions of Class C felony burglary.

Neil Short v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1308-PC-422
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Shannon L. Simons v. State of Indiana (NFP)
07A05-1308-CR-436
Criminal. Affirms revocation of probation and order Simons serve 90 days of her previously suspended sentence.

Alan Ramsey v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1308-CR-341
Criminal. Affirms convictions of Class C felony child molesting and Class A felony child molesting.

Timothy E. Strowmatt v. Jennifer Smith, Matt Penticuff, Misty Cecil (NFP)
33A01-1310-PL-441
Civil plenary. Affirms dismissal of Strowmatt’s civil rights complaint.

T.W. v. Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development (NFP)
93A02-1310-EX-871
Agency action. Reverses dismissal of T.W.’s appeal by the Review Board of the Indiana Department of Workforce Development.

Heath Burgess v. State of Indiana (NFP)
79A02-1309-CR-754
Criminal. Affirms aggregate five-year sentence following guilty plea to Class A misdemeanor operating a vehicle while intoxicated and admittance to being a habitual substance offender.

Robin (Bankert) Hall v. Robert H. Bankert (NFP)
06A01-1304-DR-186
Domestic relation. Affirms order disposing of the then-pending issues involving the allocation of extraordinary uninsured medical expenses, tax deductions and the treatment of gratuitous support in a post-dissolution proceeding.

Howard Wilson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1308-CR-384
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court posted no opinions by IL deadline Wednesday. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana decisions by IL deadline Wednesday.

 

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