ILNews

Opinions Aug. 15, 2011

August 15, 2011
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Supreme Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

Indiana Court of Appeals
T.W. v. State of Indiana
54A01-1103-JV-125
Juvenile. Affirms order that T.W. must register as a sex offender for 10 years. In the absence of any constitutional constraints, it was entirely the General Assembly’s prerogative to grant Indiana courts the subject matter jurisdiction to enter orders requiring certain juveniles to register as sex offenders. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in overruling T.W.’s objections to the testimony of two court-appointed psychologists.

Jimmy Robinson v. State of Indiana (NFP)
20A03-1101-CR-57
Criminal. Affirms convictions of two counts of Class A misdemeanor invasion of privacy.

J.B. Whitelow v. State of Indiana (NFP)
45A05-1009-CR-586
Criminal. Affirms convictions of felony murder, Class C felony attempted battery, and adjudication as an habitual offender.

The Education Resources Institute v. Douglas L. Krasnoff (NFP)
49A02-1007-CC-899
Civil collections. Reverses dismissal of The Education Resources Institute’s suit against Krasnoff. Remands for a new trial.

Lee Tibbetts v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A05-1010-CR-609
Criminal. Affirms convictions of and sentence for four counts of Class A felony child molesting, two counts of Class C felony child molesting, and one count of Class D felony vicarious sexual gratification.

Cesar Sanchez v. State of Indiana (NFP)
06A01-1103-CR-111
Criminal. Reverses sentence for Class C felony operating a vehicle after forfeiture of license for life and Class D felony operating a vehicle while intoxicated. Remands with instructions to issue a revised sentence as detailed in the opinion. Judge Bradford dissents.

Leonard E. Luna v. State of Indiana (NFP)
57A03-1103-CR-114
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class D felony intimidation.

J.F. v. State of Indiana (NFP)
92A04-1103-JV-149
Juvenile. Affirms adjudication as a juvenile delinquent for committing what would be criminal recklessness if committed by an adult.


Indiana Tax Court had posted no opinions at IL deadline.

The Indiana Supreme Court did not grant or deny transfer to any cases for the week ending Aug. 12.
 

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 wonder if the USSR had electronic voting machines that changed the ballot after it was cast? Oh well, at least we have a free media serving as vicious watchdog and exposing all of the rot in the system! (Insert rimshot)

  2. Jose, you are assuming those in power do not wish to be totalitarian. My experience has convinced me otherwise. Constitutionalists are nearly as rare as hens teeth among the powerbrokers "managing" us for The Glorious State. Oh, and your point is dead on, el correcta mundo. Keep the Founders’ (1791 & 1851) vision alive, my friend, even if most all others, and especially the ruling junta, chase only power and money (i.e. mammon)

  3. Hypocrisy in high places, absolute immunity handed out like Halloween treats (it is the stuff of which tyranny is made) and the belief that government agents are above the constitutions and cannot be held responsible for mere citizen is killing, perhaps has killed, The Republic. And yet those same power drunk statists just reel on down the hallway toward bureaucratic fascism.

  4. Well, I agree with you that the people need to wake up and see what our judges and politicians have done to our rights and freedoms. This DNA loophole in the statute of limitations is clearly unconstitutional. Why should dna evidence be treated different than video tape evidence for example. So if you commit a crime and they catch you on tape or if you confess or leave prints behind: they only have five years to bring their case. However, if dna identifies someone they can still bring a case even fifty-years later. where is the common sense and reason. Members of congress are corrupt fools. They should all be kicked out of office and replaced by people who respect the constitution.

  5. If the AG could pick and choose which state statutes he defended from Constitutional challenge, wouldn't that make him more powerful than the Guv and General Assembly? In other words, the AG should have no choice in defending laws. He should defend all of them. If its a bad law, blame the General Assembly who presumably passed it with a majority (not the government lawyer). Also, why has there been no write up on the actual legislators who passed the law defining marriage? For all the fuss Democrats have made, it would be interesting to know if some Democrats voted in favor of it (or if some Republican's voted against it). Have a nice day.

ADVERTISEMENT