ILNews

Opinions Aug. 22, 2012

August 22, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals posted no Indiana opinions at IL deadline.

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

Indiana Court of Appeals

Ashley T. Tucker v. Michelle R. Harrison, M.D.
79A05-1108-CT-404
Civil tort. Affirms judgment in favor of Dr. Harrison on Tucker’s medical malpractice complaint. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding Tucker’s expert testimony, limiting her questioning of a witness about possible bias, or in instructing the jury.

Ryan E. Bean v. State of Indiana
91A02-1109-CR-906
Criminal. Reverses two convictions of Class A felony child molesting and remands for retrials if the state so chooses. Concludes Bean was in custody when he finally admitted to the molestation. Bean’s confession was obtained in violation of Miranda protocol and shouldn’t have been admitted into evidence in his trials in Carroll and White counties.  

Jorge Henriquez v. State of Indiana
49A02-1201-CR-6
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony resisting law enforcement. The trial court did not err in not interrogating the jurors or taking other remedial action regarding alleged improper influence of an alternate juror, so Henriquez’s claim of fundamental error fails.

Gregory L. Brown v. Review Board of the Indiana Dept. of Workforce Development, and H & H Mechanical of Michiana LLC (NFP)
93A02-1202-EX-133
Agency action. Affirms denial of unemployment benefits.

Dennis Ogutu v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A03-1202-CR-98
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor neglect of a dependent.
 
In Re: The Term. of the Parent-Child Rel. of: C.H. and G.H., and G.H. and J.H. v. Indiana Dept. of Child Services (NFP)
79A02-1112-JT-1203
Juvenile termination. Affirms termination of parental rights.

In the Matter of T.B., A Child Alleged to be a Delinquent Child v. State of Indiana (NFP)
65A04-1203-JV-146
Juvenile. Affirms order requiring T.B. register as a sex offender.

Tacuma G. Wolfe v. State of Indiana (NFP)
18A05-1111-CR-604
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony dealing in cocaine.

Kenneth W. Wegener v. State of Indiana (NFP)
34A05-1202-PC-47
Post conviction. Affirms denial of petition for post-conviction relief.

Steven D. Powell v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A03-1201-CR-2
Criminal. Affirms sentence for Class B felony dealing in cocaine and Class C felony attempted battery.

Michael A. Ayers v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1201-CR-52
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony attempted murder.

Ivan Brown v. State of Indiana (NFP)
71A04-1201-CR-24
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class B felony burglary.
 

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. I need an experienced attorney to handle a breach of contract matter. Kindly respond for more details. Graham Young

  2. I thought the slurs were the least grave aspects of her misconduct, since they had nothing to do with her being on the bench. Why then do I suspect they were the focus? I find this a troubling trend. At least she was allowed to keep her law license.

  3. Section 6 of Article I of the Indiana Constitution is pretty clear and unequivocal: "Section 6. No money shall be drawn from the treasury for the benefit of any religious or theological institution."

  4. Video pen? Nice work, "JW"! Let this be a lesson and a caution to all disgruntled ex-spouses (or soon-to-be ex-spouses) . . . you may think that altercation is going to get you some satisfaction . . . it will not.

  5. First comment on this thread is a fitting final comment on this thread, as that the MCBA never answered Duncan's fine question, and now even Eric Holder agrees that the MCBA was in material error as to the facts: "I don't get it" from Duncan December 1, 2014 5:10 PM "The Grand Jury met for 25 days and heard 70 hours of testimony according to this article and they made a decision that no crime occurred. On what basis does the MCBA conclude that their decision was "unjust"? What special knowledge or evidence does the MCBA have that the Grand Jury hearing this matter was unaware of? The system that we as lawyers are sworn to uphold made a decision that there was insufficient proof that officer committed a crime. How can any of us say we know better what was right than the jury that actually heard all of the the evidence in this case."

ADVERTISEMENT