ILNews

Opinions Aug. 11, 2010

August 11, 2010
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

7th Circuit Court of Appeals
United States of America v. Eddie Lamar Carlisle
10-1173
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Fort Wayne Division, Judge William C. Lee.
Criminal. Affirms denial of motion to suppress. Carlisle didn’t have a privacy interest in the bag he was carrying, which contained drugs and paraphernalia, when police came to the house during a drug sweep. The officers had reasonable suspicion to believe that criminal activity was occurring and that Carlisle was armed and dangerous, thereby making the initial stop proper.

United States of America v. Robert J. Cantrell
09-1856
U.S. District Court, Northern District of Indiana, Hammond Division, Judge Rudy Lozano.
Criminal. Affirms 78-month sentence for committing honest services fraud, using position in public office to steer contracts to a third party in exchange for kickbacks, and other convictions. The honest services fraud counts are not unconstitutionally vague and the judge addressed Cantrell’s arguments for leniency.

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
Mary Beth & Perry Lucas v. U.S. Bank, N.A., et al.
28A01-0910-CV-482
Civil. Reverses denial of the Lucases’ motion for a jury trial on their counterclaims and third-party claims against their mortgage holder and loan servicer. The essential features of the cause are not equitable. Remands with instructions they be granted a jury trial on their legal causes of actions.

D.H. v. State of Indiana
49A05-1002-JV-92
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication for committing what would be Class D felony battery if committed by an adult. The doctrine of transferred intent supports the delinquency finding. Because D.H. admitted he intended to punch the other student, the fact he mistakenly hit his teacher cannot act as a defense.

Brian N. Stearman v. State of Indiana (NFP)

29A02-1002-CR-214
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class C felony child solicitation.

Paternity of I.H.; R.P. v. C.H. (NFP)
84A04-1004-JP-237
Juvenile. Affirms order finding R.P. to be father of I.H. and requiring father to pay $47 per week in child support plus an arrearage of $7,238.

Devon Sterling v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-0910-CR-606
Criminal. Affirms conviction of murder.

Paternity of C.T.; J.M. v. R.T. (NFP)
33A01-1003-JP-184
Juvenile. Affirms order granting father R.T.’s motion for relief from judgment.

Term. of Parent-Child Rel. of J..; J.L. v. I.D.C.S. (NFP)
34A02-1001-JT-209
Juvenile. Affirms termination of parental rights.

Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. 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

  2. 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.

  3. 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?

  4. 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

  5. Justice has finally been served. So glad that Dr. Ley can finally sleep peacefully at night knowing the truth has finally come to the surface.

ADVERTISEMENT