ILNews

Opinions Dec. 13, 2013

December 13, 2013
Keywords
Back to TopE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

Indiana Court of Appeals
John Everitt Dickey v. State of Indiana
10A01-1212-CR-587
Criminal. Affirms conviction of two counts of Class A child molesting, rejecting Dickey’s argument that testimony about his physical abuse of the victim and her mother was improperly admitted. The court held that Dickey failed to preserve the argument for appeal because, while his attorney objected to a line of questioning about when Dickey’s relationship with the victim’s mother began to change, a continuing objection was not raised.

Indiana Supreme Court
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Demetrius Walker v. State of Indiana
49S02-1312-CR-804
Criminal. Affirms Walker’s conviction for resisting law enforcement as a Class A misdemeanor. Although he did not physically touch a police officer, Walker ignored orders to drop to the ground and instead moved toward the officer in an aggressive manner with his fist clenched. The Supreme Court found the totality of Walker’s conduct was sufficient to show an active threat of strength, violence or power.


7th Circuit Court of Appeals
The following opinion was issued after IL deadline Thursday.
Kenny A. Jones, Sr. v. City of Elkhart, Indiana, et al.
12-3912
Criminal. Affirms summary judgment in favor of City of Elkhart and other defendants in a suit alleging a traffic stop and drunken-driving arrest were violations of the plaintiff’s Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. Summary judgment was permissible because the record showed ample probable cause for police to stop Jones, who later tested above the legal blood alcohol limit and was charged with operating a vehicle while intoxicated.

The Indiana Supreme Court and Tax Court issued no opinions prior to IL deadline. The 7th Circuit Court of Appeals issued no Indiana decisions prior to IL deadline.
 

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