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. Future generations will be amazed that we prosecuted people for possessing a harmless plant. The New York Times came out in favor of legalization in Saturday's edition of the newspaper.

  2. Well, maybe it's because they are unelected, and, they have a tendency to strike down laws by elected officials from all over the country. When you have been taught that "Democracy" is something almost sacred, then, you will have a tendency to frown on such imperious conduct. Lawyers get acculturated in law school into thinking that this is the very essence of high minded government, but to people who are more heavily than King George ever did, they may not like it. Thanks for the information.

  3. I pd for a bankruptcy years ago with Mr Stiles and just this week received a garnishment from my pay! He never filed it even though he told me he would! Don't let this guy practice law ever again!!!

  4. Excellent initiative on the part of the AG. Thankfully someone takes action against predators taking advantage of people who have already been through the wringer. Well done!

  5. Conour will never turn these funds over to his defrauded clients. He tearfully told the court, and his daughters dutifully pledged in interviews, that his first priority is to repay every dime of the money he stole from his clients. Judge Young bought it, much to the chagrin of Conour’s victims. Why would Conour need the $2,262 anyway? Taxpayers are now supporting him, paying for his housing, utilities, food, healthcare, and clothing. If Conour puts the money anywhere but in the restitution fund, he’s proved, once again, what a con artist he continues to be and that he has never had any intention of repaying his clients. Judge Young will be proven wrong... again; Conour has no remorse and the Judge is one of the many conned.

ADVERTISEMENT