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
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Indianapolis employers harassment among minorities AFRICAN Americans needs to be discussed the metro Indianapolis area is horrible when it comes to harassing African American employees especially in the local healthcare facilities. Racially profiling in the workplace is an major issue. Please make it better because I'm many civil rights leaders would come here and justify that Indiana is a state the WORKS only applies to Caucasian Americans especially in Hamilton county. Indiana targets African Americans in the workplace so when governor pence is trying to convince people to vote for him this would be awesome publicity for the Presidency Elections.

  2. Wishing Mary Willis only God's best, and superhuman strength, as she attempts to right a ship that too often strays far off course. May she never suffer this personal affect, as some do who attempt to change a broken system: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QojajMsd2nE

  3. Indiana's seatbelt law is not punishable as a crime. It is an infraction. Apparently some of our Circuit judges have deemed settled law inapplicable if it fails to fit their litmus test of political correctness. Extrapolating to redefine terms of behavior in a violation of immigration law to the entire body of criminal law leaves a smorgasbord of opportunity for judicial mischief.

  4. I wonder if $10 diversions for failure to wear seat belts are considered moral turpitude in federal immigration law like they are under Indiana law? Anyone know?

  5. What a fine article, thank you! I can testify firsthand and by detailed legal reports (at end of this note) as to the dire consequences of rejecting this truth from the fine article above: "The inclusion and expansion of this right [to jury] in Indiana’s Constitution is a clear reflection of our state’s intention to emphasize the importance of every Hoosier’s right to make their case in front of a jury of their peers." Over $20? Every Hoosier? Well then how about when your very vocation is on the line? How about instead of a jury of peers, one faces a bevy of political appointees, mini-czars, who care less about due process of the law than the real czars did? Instead of trial by jury, trial by ideological ordeal run by Orwellian agents? Well that is built into more than a few administrative law committees of the Ind S.Ct., and it is now being weaponized, as is revealed in articles posted at this ezine, to root out post moderns heresies like refusal to stand and pledge allegiance to all things politically correct. My career was burned at the stake for not so saluting, but I think I was just one of the early logs. Due, at least in part, to the removal of the jury from bar admission and bar discipline cases, many more fires will soon be lit. Perhaps one awaits you, dear heretic? Oh, at that Ind. article 12 plank about a remedy at law for every damage done ... ah, well, the founders evidently meant only for those damages done not by the government itself, rabid statists that they were. (Yes, that was sarcasm.) My written reports available here: Denied petition for cert (this time around): http://tinyurl.com/zdmawmw Denied petition for cert (from the 2009 denial and five year banishment): http://tinyurl.com/zcypybh Related, not written by me: Amicus brief: http://tinyurl.com/hvh7qgp

ADVERTISEMENT