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. It appears the police and prosecutors are allowed to change the rules halfway through the game to suit themselves. I am surprised that the congress has not yet eliminated the right to a trial in cases involving any type of forensic evidence. That would suit their foolish law and order police state views. I say we eliminate the statute of limitations for crimes committed by members of congress and other government employees. Of course they would never do that. They are all corrupt cowards!!!

  2. Poor Judge Brown probably thought that by slavishly serving the godz of the age her violations of 18th century concepts like due process and the rule of law would be overlooked. Mayhaps she was merely a Judge ahead of her time?

  3. in a lawyer discipline case Judge Brown, now removed, was presiding over a hearing about a lawyer accused of the supposedly heinous ethical violation of saying the words "Illegal immigrant." (IN re Barker) http://www.in.gov/judiciary/files/order-discipline-2013-55S00-1008-DI-429.pdf .... I wonder if when we compare the egregious violations of due process by Judge Brown, to her chiding of another lawyer for politically incorrectness, if there are any conclusions to be drawn about what kind of person, what kind of judge, what kind of apparatchik, is busy implementing the agenda of political correctness and making off-limits legit advocacy about an adverse party in a suit whose illegal alien status is relevant? I am just asking the question, the reader can make own conclsuion. Oh wait-- did I use the wrong adjective-- let me rephrase that, um undocumented alien?

  4. of course the bigger questions of whether or not the people want to pay for ANY bussing is off limits, due to the Supreme Court protecting the people from DEMOCRACY. Several decades hence from desegregation and bussing plans and we STILL need to be taking all this taxpayer money to combat mostly-imagined "discrimination" in the most obviously failed social program of the postwar period.

  5. You can put your photos anywhere you like... When someone steals it they know it doesn't belong to them. And, a man getting a divorce is automatically not a nice guy...? That's ridiculous. Since when is need of money a conflict of interest? That would mean that no one should have a job unless they are already financially solvent without a job... A photographer is also under no obligation to use a watermark (again, people know when a photo doesn't belong to them) or provide contact information. Hey, he didn't make it easy for me to pay him so I'll just take it! Well heck, might as well walk out of the grocery store with a cart full of food because the lines are too long and you don't find that convenient. "Only in Indiana." Oh, now you're passing judgement on an entire state... What state do you live in? I need to characterize everyone in your state as ignorant and opinionated. And the final bit of ignorance; assuming a photo anyone would want is lucky and then how much does your camera have to cost to make it a good photo, in your obviously relevant opinion?

ADVERTISEMENT