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 can understand a 10 yr suspension for drinking and driving and not following the rules,but don't you think the people who compleate their sentences and are trying to be good people of their community,and are on the right path should be able to obtain a drivers license to do as they please.We as a state should encourage good behavior instead of saying well you did all your time but we can't give you a license come on.When is a persons time served than cause from where I'm standing,its still a punishment,when u can't have the freedom to go where ever you want to in car,truck ,motorcycle,maybe their should be better programs for people instead of just throwing them away like daily trash,then expecting them to change because they we in jail or prison for x amount of yrs.Everyone should look around because we all pay each others bills,and keep each other in business..better knowledge equals better community equals better people...just my 2 cents

  2. I was wondering about the 6 million put aside for common attorney fees?does that mean that if you are a plaintiff your attorney fees will be partially covered?

  3. I expressed my thought in the title, long as it was. I am shocked that there is ever immunity from accountability for ANY Government agency. That appears to violate every principle in the US Constitution, which exists to limit Government power and to ensure Government accountability. I don't know how many cases of legitimate child abuse exist, but in the few cases in which I knew the people involved, in every example an anonymous caller used DCS as their personal weapon to strike at innocent people over trivial disagreements that had no connection with any facts. Given that the system is vulnerable to abuse, and given the extreme harm any action by DCS causes to families, I would assume any degree of failure to comply with the smallest infraction of personal rights would result in mandatory review. Even one day of parent-child separation in the absence of reasonable cause for a felony arrest should result in severe penalties to those involved in the action. It appears to me, that like all bureaucracies, DCS is prone to interpret every case as legitimate. This is not an accusation against DCS. It is a statement about the nature of bureaucracies, and the need for ADDED scrutiny of all bureaucratic actions. Frankly, I question the constitutionality of bureaucracies in general, because their power is delegated, and therefore unaccountable. No Government action can be unaccountable if we want to avoid its eventual degeneration into irrelevance and lawlessness, and the law of the jungle. Our Constitution is the source of all Government power, and it is the contract that legitimizes all Government power. To the extent that its various protections against intrusion are set aside, so is the power afforded by that contract. Eventually overstepping the limits of power eliminates that power, as a law of nature. Even total tyranny eventually crumbles to nothing.

  4. Being dedicated to a genre keeps it alive until the masses catch up to the "trend." Kent and Bill are keepin' it LIVE!! Thank you gentlemen..you know your JAZZ.

  5. Hemp has very little THC which is needed to kill cancer cells! Growing cannabis plants for THC inside a hemp field will not work...where is the fear? From not really knowing about Cannabis and Hemp or just not listening to the people teaching you through testimonies and packets of info over the last few years! Wake up Hoosier law makers!

ADVERTISEMENT