ILNews

Opinions Dec. 11, 2012

December 11, 2012
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
Paul Henry Gingerich v. State of Indiana
43A05-1101-CR-27
Criminal. Reverses conviction of Class A felony conspiracy to commit murder and remands for further proceedings. The juvenile court abused its discretion when it denied Gingerich’s request for a continuance.

James O. Young v. State of Indiana
20A04-1112-CR-699
Criminal.  Reverses Young’s conviction of Class D felony strangulation subject to possible retrial. The admission of Young’s girlfriend’s statements to the firefighters did not violate Young’s confrontation rights under the 6th Amendment, but her statements to a police officer were not admissible as excited utterances. Reverses conviction of Class D felony domestic battery as the evidence does not support that children were present when the domestic battery occurred. Remands with instructions that judgment be entered as a Class A misdemeanor.

Johnny Mosby v. State of Indiana (NFP)
49A02-1205-CR-403
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor operating while intoxicated.

Douglas A. Schwan v. Linda D. Schwan (NFP)
80A05-1204-DR-171
Domestic relation. Affirms division of marital property.

Phyllis Allen v. State of Indiana (NFP)
82A04-1205-CR-263
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A misdemeanor battery.

Richard A. Walls v. Janet Walls (NFP)
10A01-1112-DR-572
Domestic relation. Affirms determination that the real property was commingled with the marital estate and the decision to award Janet Walls a one-half interest in the real property.

Chad E. Aslinger v. State of Indiana (NFP)
68A04-1205-DR-259
Domestic relation. Reverses finding of contempt of court for failure to pay child support.

Garland Aschenbrenner, Winifred Aschenbrenner, and South Bend Carpetland USA, Inc., d/b/a Abbey Carpets and Floors v. Melvin H. Sandock Inter Vivos Revocable Trust, et al. (NFP)
71A04-1201-PL-96
Civil plenary. Vacates judgment in favor of the revocable trusts and the Sandocks that awarded damages of $180,183.11 plus attorney fees. Remands with instructions.

Steven T. Lakes v. State of Indiana (NFP)
15A01-1204-CR-186
Criminal. Affirms sentence following guilty plea to Class D felonies operating a vehicle while intoxicated with a passenger less than 18 years of age and operating a vehicle as a habitual traffic violator, and being a habitual substance offender.

Bradley S. Sater v. State of Indiana (NFP)
32A04-1204-CR-182
Criminal. Affirms conviction of Class A felony dealing in methamphetamine and remands with instructions to vacate the conviction of Class C felony possession of methamphetamine.

 

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