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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT